WALTER HARDEN, 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.
Court affirmed denial of motion to correct sentence for stacking mandatory minimums, holding that although the sentencing principle was later found inconsistent with Branam v. State, the sentence was legal when imposed and does not warrant post-conviction relief.
A sentence that stacks mandatory minimum sentences, though later found inconsistent with subsequent case law, does not constitute an illegal sentence warranting correction under Rule 3.800 if it was proper when imposed.
[1] A sentence that was legal when imposed does not become illegal for post-conviction correction purposes merely because subsequent case law announces a principle inconsiste…
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 intelligenceHarden received a sentence involving stacking of mandatory minimum sentences that was affirmed on direct appeal in 1989, but he later filed a Rule 3.8…
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 Correction Of Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm the denial of defendant’s motion filed under rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to correct an alleged illegal sentence.
The sentence, which involved the stacking of mandatory minimum sentences, is inconsistent with the principle announced in Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d 512 (Fla.1990). See also Boom v. State, 574 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Nonetheless, it appears to have been proper at the time it was imposed and, in fact, subsequently affirmed by this court in Harden v. State, 541 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See Palmer v. State, 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1983).
As in McCuiston v. State, 507 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), approved, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla.1988), the change in the law bearing upon the circumstances of this case was “not such a fundamental ... change as will cast serious doubt on the veracity or integrity of ... [the] original trial proceeding,” 507 So. 2d at 1188, and “was not illegal, per se, as being above the statutory maximum,” 534 So. 2d at 1147. See also Brown v. State, 588 So. 2d 651, 652 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (“[T]he fact that the original reasons for departure were subsequently held to be invalid in unrelated decisions does not constitute fundamental or constitutional error warranting post conviction relief on the grounds of sentence illegality.”).
Affirmed.
SCHOONOVER, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fannin v. State, 751 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…t. See, e.g., Mazza v. State, 499 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Prentice v. State, 469 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Lightfoot v. State, 459 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (consecutive minimum mandatories for separate offenses). In Harden v. State, 595 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), which we decided post -Branam but which involved crimes the defendant committed gre-Branam, we stated that stacking of minimum mandatory sentences, although improper under Branam, “appears to have been proper at the time it was i…
-
Mario v. Troncoso, 825 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…), Florida Statutes (1983), provides that any person who conspires to commit the act prohibited by subsection (1) is guilty of a felony of the first-degree and is punishable as if he had actually committed such prohibited act. . In Harden v. State, 595 So. 2d 585, (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s 3.800 motion finding that although the sentence, which involved the stacking of minimum mandatory sentences is inconsistent with the principle announced in Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Dean v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Hall, 534 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1988)
- Branam v. State, 554 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 1990)
- McCUISTON v. State, 507 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Boom v. State, 574 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Edelmiro Alvarez v. State, 574 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Brown v. State, 588 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)