JEFFREY SCOTT WALLS, 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.
Jeffrey Scott Walls appealed the denial of his motion challenging two illegal sentences imposed for burglary and arson. The court agreed that the consecutive probationary sentences violated the six-year limitation on youthful offender sentences under Florida law and reversed, granting relief from the illegal sentences.
The court held that the consecutive probationary sentences totaling twenty years for the burglary and arson charges were illegal under the Youthful Offender Act, as consecutive sentences cannot exceed the six-year maximum limitation even when imposed on multiple charges.
[1] A sentence imposed on a youthful offender that exceeds the statutory maximum, even when imposed consecutively for multiple offenses, is illegal.
[2] Consecutive probationary terms totaling twenty years imposed on youthful offender charges cannot stand if they exceed the statutory limitations.
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“The sentences imposed upon the appellant with respect to the burglary and arson charges clearly were illegal under the holding of the supreme court in Allen v. State, 526 So.2d 69 (Fla.1988).”
Establishes that the lower court sentences violated established Florida Supreme Court precedent regarding youthful offender sentence limitations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1985, Walls pleaded guilty to three felonies: grand theft, commercial burglary, and arson under three separate case numbers. He was sentenced on th…
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 Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant appeals from the denial of his motion for relief from two illegal sentences. We agree with the appellant that the sentences in question are illegal, and we reverse.
In 1985 the appellant pled guilty to three felony charges filed under three different case numbers. Case No. 85-5013 charged grand theft, Case No. 85-5012 charged commercial burglary, and Case No. 85-5011 charged arson. The appellant was sentenced on all three charges on the same day. In Case No. 85-5013 (grand theft) the appellant was sentenced as a youthful offender to three years incarceration followed by two years community control. In Case No. 85-5012 (burglary) the appellant was sentenced to five years probation consecutive to the sentence imposed in Case No. 85-5013. In Case No. 85-5011 (arson) the appellant was sentenced to fifteen years probation to be served consecutively to the probationary period imposed in Case No. 85-5012.
The appellant filed a motion for relief from the sentences imposed for burglary and arson on the grounds that they exceeded the six-year limitation placed on youthful offender sentences by section 958.05, Florida Statutes (1983), the statute which applied to the appellant’s offenses. That statute provided that a youthful offender could be sentenced to a period of incarceration for a term not exceeding four years and a period of not more than two years to be served in a community control program.
The sentences imposed upon the appellant with respect to the burglary and arson charges clearly were illegal under the holding of the supreme court in Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1988). There the court specifically rejected the argument that the imposition of consecutive sentences on a youthful offender, where he is sentenced on more than one charge, may exceed the six-year maximum prescribed by the Youthful Offender Act. Thus, in the case before us, the consecutive probationary terms totaling twenty years imposed on the burglary and arson charges cannot stand.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the appellant be granted relief from these two illegal sentences.
FRANK and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Abel Oliveros Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…isting statutes. . Aultman v. State, 515 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Singletary v. State, 520 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Brewer v. State, 531 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Wright v. State, 531 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Varela v. State, 550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Siplin v. State, 584 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Alfonso v. State, 595 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Gawron v. State, 597 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Williams v. State,…
-
Gore v. State, 559 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…contends that the trial court erred in imposing court costs without notice or a determination of his ability to pay. We agree and strike these costs without prejudice to the state to seek to have them reimposed after proper notice. Varela v. State, 550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Affirmed. RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.…
-
Drew David Kirkman v. State, 598 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…seq., Florida Statutes (1987). Under section 958.04(2)(c), Florida Statute (1987), the maximum sentence that may be imposed is a period of incarceration for a term not exceeding four years followed by two years of community control. Walls v. State, 550 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). By imposing two consecutive periods of community control following the sentence for robbery with a deadly weapon, the appellant was sentenced to serve a total of ten years. This sentence exceeded the statutory maximum allowed in…
Authorities Cited
- Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 1988)