DANNY HAMMOND, 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.
Danny Hammond appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, challenging errors in the guidelines sentencing scoresheet. The court affirmed the trial court's compliance with prior instructions but identified legal errors in the judgment regarding offense degree classifications and sentence lengths that exceeded statutory maximums, requiring vacation and remand for clarification and resentencing.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the prior motion on remand but vacated and remanded the judgment and sentences because apparent errors exist concerning either the degree classification of the offenses or the length of the sentences imposed, which cannot be ascertained from the record.
[1] A prior appellate decision addressing a specific issue precludes reconsideration of that same issue on remand when the trial court's order complies with the appellate cou…
[2] A defendant may file a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 to challenge the voluntariness of a plea, independent of other appeals.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“robbery with a firearm is a first degree felony, punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 30 years or by imprisonment not exceeding life”
Establishes the correct statutory classification and sentencing range for robbery with a firearm, contrasting with the trial court's erroneous second degree classification
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHammond was convicted of robbery with a firearm and multiple burglary offenses. The judgment classified the robbery with a firearm as a second degree …
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 Sentencing Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
Appellant, Danny Hammond, having previously appealed the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, see Hammond v. State, 591 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (Hammond I), now seeks review of the trial court’s denial of his motion on remand. Appellant contends that the guidelines sentencing scoresheet used to calculate his potential sentence contained errors. Having previously addressed that issue in Hammond I, we decline to reconsider the issue, because the trial court’s order on remand complies with our instructions in Hammond I. We therefore affirm as to this point without prejudice to appellant to file a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 regarding the voluntariness of his plea.
Nonetheless, the state has raised an issue which concerns the legality of appellant’s sentences in that errors appear on the face of the judgment and sentences regarding the degree classification of the offenses for which appellant was convicted and/or the length of the sentences imposed for those offenses. For instance, the judgment indicates that appellant was convicted of robbery with a firearm and designates such as a second degree felony, yet the 35-year sentence imposed for same exceeds the 15-year statutory maximum for second degree felonies. See § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1989). While robbery may be classified as either a first or second degree felony, robbery with a firearm is a first degree felony, punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 30 years or by imprisonment not exceeding life. See §§ 812.-13(2)(a) & 775.082(3)(b), Fla.Stat. (1989). Thus, it appears that an error exists as to the degree classification of the offense and/or length of the sentence.
We note a similar problem with the burglary convictions. The judgment indicates that eight of the nine burglary counts are third degree felonies, yet the 15-year sentences imposed exceed the 5-year statutory maximum for third degree felonies. See § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1989). Depending on the circumstances, burglary may be designated as a first, second, or third degree crime. See § 810.02, Fla.Stat. (1989). If the burglary offenses were classified as a second or first degree felonies, then the 15-year sentences would be legal. Thus, there appears to be an error as to either the degree classification of the burglary offenses or the length of the sentences.
Because we are unable to ascertain from the record before us whether the above errors constitute illegal sentences, we vacate the judgment and sentences and remand for clarification and resentencing.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.