ALFRED LEE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Williams appeals his five-year burglary sentence, claiming the sentencing guidelines calculation was improper because the trial court failed to require the state to prove the number of prior convictions used to calculate his presumptive sentence. The appeal is dismissed as moot because Williams has already served his sentence and been released.
Although the trial court erred in entering sentence without requiring the state to corroborate the prior convictions once the defendant objected, the appeal is dismissed as moot because Williams has served both sentences and been released, rendering any error in the prior conviction scoring harmless.
[1] A criminal sentence is rendered moot and an appeal therefrom will be dismissed when the defendant has served both sentences and has been released.
[2] A trial court errs in entering a sentence without requiring the state to corroborate prior convictions when the defendant objects to the number of convictions used in cal…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although the trial court erred in entering sentence without requiring the state to corroborate the prior convictions once the defendant had objected to the number of convictions shown on the score-sheet”
Establishes that the trial court committed error but the error is rendered moot by defendant's release
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 8, 1987, Williams was convicted of burglary and petit theft. At sentencing, defense counsel objected to and demanded proof of the prior co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Prior Convictions cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
The defendant appeals his five-year sentence for burglary, alleging that it is improper under the sentencing guidelines.
On December 8, 1987, he was convicted of burglary and petit theft. At the sentencing hearing, which was conducted immedi ately after the defendant’s trial, defense counsel objected to and demanded proof of the number of prior convictions which the state had used in calculating the defendant’s presumptive guidelines sentence of nine to twelve years’ incarceration for the burglary conviction. Rather than delay the entry of sentence, the trial court imposed a five-year jail sentence for the burglary conviction and a consecutive sixty-day jail sentence for the petit theft conviction.
The trial court, however, informed the parties that it would modify the five-year sentence if the state did not establish the prior convictions.
At a post-trial hearing held on December 15, 1987, the prosecutor represented to the trial court that he had found felony convictions which would support a presumptive guidelines sentence in only the 3y2-to-4V2-year range. No evidence was presented. The prosecutor requested additional time to obtain evidence of convictions in another county.
The trial court “struck” the ease from the docket, but did not modify or vacate the sentence. Defense counsel did not attempt to resolve this sentencing issue during the three weeks remaining to file a notice of appeal. Instead, he filed a notice of appeal two days later.
On May 16, 1989, the appellate public defender filed a motion to determine mootness, alleging that the defendant had served his sentence and had been released and, thus, the sentencing issue had been rendered moot. This court denied the motion without prejudice to the defendant filing a motion to dismiss. Such a motion was never filed.
Although the trial court erred in entering sentence without requiring the state to corroborate the prior convictions once the defendant had objected to the number of convictions shown on the score-sheet, see Smith v. State, 528 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Lovett v. State, 536 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Massalene v. State, 524 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), we are compelled to dismiss this appeal because the defendant has served both of his sentences and has been released. Any error in the scoring of his prior convictions on the scoresheet has been rendered moot.
Dismissed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and EDWARD F. BOARDMAN, (Ret.) J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Casterline v. State, 703 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…, is a sentence, but the 1995 sentence was complete upon Caster-line’s commitment to the Department of Corrections. Attacks on sentences which have been served in full generally cannot be entertained because the issue is moot. See Williams v. State, 549 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The 1995 proceeding does in fact have an impact on his current sentence. However, he cannot be heard to complain that the “reimposition” of the special condition was unconstitutional, as it followed a finding that he was in viola…
-
Deloris Cherry v. State, 718 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…tate, 662 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla.1995) (maximum sentence for a third-degree felony is five years); § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1987). Nonetheless, Cherry has completed the sentence in question, making this issue on appeal moot. See Williams v. State, 549 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). However, because Cherry’s original sentence resulted in no adjudication, the adjudication the trial court entered following the revocation of probation must be reversed. Finally, we note that Cherry originally entered a ple…
-
Williams v. State, 591 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…one year, or 365 days, which exceeded the sentencing limit by one day. Yet, even though a sentencing error exists, because Williams has already served the term of imprisonment the matter is moot and does not require reversal. See Williams v. State, 549 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Furthermore, we reverse the trial court’s imposition of the two year community control sentence on Williams, which followed his one year of imprisonment. A sentence of community control as a condition of probation is a depa…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 528 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Lovett v. State, 536 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Emory Massalene v. State, 524 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)