JAMES D. DURDEN, 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.
Appellant's post-conviction motion was partially denied: the trial court properly imposed a sentence within guideline ranges, but the court erred by ordering costs and restitution without notice or ability-to-pay determination, requiring remand.
A split sentence of three years incarceration plus 15 years probation falls within guideline ranges when the incarcerative portion is within the recommended range and the total sanction does not exceed the statutory maximum.
[1] A trial court must provide prior notice and determine a defendant's ability to pay before imposing costs and restitution as a condition of sentence.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant agreed to a guideline sentence and was sentenced to three years incarceration followed by 15 years probation. The guidelines recommended 3.5…
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 Guidelines Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant appeals the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P., in which he raised two issues: (1) that the sentence imposed by the trial court exceeded the agreed-upon guideline term; and (2) that he was improperly ordered to pay costs and restitution, without the court having provided prior notice or determining his ability to pay.
We affirm the trial court’s denial of the first issue. The record indicates that appellant agreed to a guideline sentence, and that the guidelines in this case recommended a sentence of 3V2 to 4½ years incarceration. The trial court sentenced appellant to a split sentence of three years incarceration followed by 15 years probation. Because the incarcerative portion of appellant’s sentence fell within the permitted range of the guildelines and the total sanction fell within the maximum term provided by general law, the sentence did not exceed the guidelines or go beyond the terms of the negotiated plea. Rule 3.701(d)(12), Fla. R.Crim.P. We reverse and remand the denial of the second issue, with directions that the trial court either attach to his order copies of the files and records conclusively showing that the appellant is entitled to no relief, or take such further action as is required by Rule 3.850.
BARFIELD, J., and CAWTHON, Senior Judge, concur.