RHONDA GAYLE BROWN, 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.
The court held that the appellant's sentence for probation violation exceeded the maximum lawful term and was therefore illegal.
Appellant was charged with uttering a forged instrument and forgery, pled nolo contendere, and was placed on probation. Upon violation of probation, t…
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 Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with uttering a forged instrument and forgery. Appellant pled nolo contendere to the charges and was ultimately placed on probation. Appellant was charged with a violation of her probation and the trial court found her in violation, revoked her probation and sentenced her to five years of imprisonment on Count I and three years imprisonment on Count II, the sentences to be served consecutively. The maximum guidelines sentence (with one-cell bump) is years incarceration. Appellant argues, therefore, the sentence received was illegal.
The state has filed an answer brief in which the state concedes that appellant’s maximum sentence of incarceration is 3½ years. We agree. The state also concedes that with applicable gain time, appellant has already served a sentence in excess of the maximum lawful sentence.
Accordingly, appellant’s sentence is vacated and this case is remanded for resentencing appellant in accordance with this opinion.
The state having confessed error and the state having joined in appellant’s motion to expedite this appeal, the motion to expedite is granted. No motion for rehearing will be entertained and this court’s mandate shall issue forthwith.
JOANOS, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Orestes Martell v. State, 676 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…o. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). However, the defendant’s conviction became final more than two years ago and he cannot now utilize Rule 3.800(a) as a means of circumventing the strict timing requirements imposed by Rule 3.850. See Alexander v. State, 571 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). We commend the trial court’s well reasoned and detailed order which we affirm in all respects. Affirmed.…