ROBERT LEE WATKINS, 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.
Robert Watkins appealed his conviction and sentences for attempted burglary, possession of burglary tools, and petit theft, challenging both the legality of his sentences and the trial court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing on his post-conviction motion. The court found that the trial court imposed sentences exceeding the statutory maximum for third-degree felonies and failed to properly address all issues in Watkins' Rule 3.850 motion.
The trial court exceeded the statutory maximum for third-degree felonies in sentencing Watkins to ten-year terms, and the trial court erred in denying the Rule 3.850 motion without holding an evidentiary hearing and without addressing all issues raised in the motion. The sentences must be remanded for resentencing to a maximum of five years for each offense, and the post-conviction motion denial must be reversed and remanded for proper consideration.
[1] A trial court may not impose a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense, even if the sentence is part of a plea agreement.
[2] A defendant may appeal an illegal sentence imposed by a trial court.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A trial court may not impose an illegal sentence, even if it is pursuant to a plea agreement.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that sentencing must comply with statutory maximums regardless of plea agreements, justifying remand for resentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 4, 1990, Watkins was charged with attempted burglary of a dwelling, possession of burglary tools, and petit theft in case number 90-1282, and …
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 Attempted Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Robert Watkins appeals his judgment and sentence for attempted burglary, possession of burglary tools, and petit theft. He also appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief.
On June 4, 1990, the state filed an information charging Watkins in circuit court case number 90-1282, with attempted burglary of a dwelling, possession of burglary tools, and petit theft. On September 17, 1990, Watkins pled nolo contendere to these charges and to burglary of a dwelling in case number 90-1593, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. In case number 90-1282, the trial court sentenced Watkins to two concurrent ten-year terms in prison for attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools, and to time served for the petit theft. In case number 90-1593, the trial court sentenced Watkins to a ten-year term for burglary of a dwelling concurrent with the sentences in case number 90-1282. Watkins’ attorney filed a notice of appeal in case number 90-1593,1 but not in case number 90-1282 because he did not believe Watkins had an appealable issue in that case.
While the appeal was pending, on June 18, 1991, Watkins filed a motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging, inter alia, that his ten-year sentences for attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools exceeded the statutory maximum for third-degree felonies. The motion also alleged that he was told that he could reserve his appellate rights in case number 90-1282 and that he recently discovered that the issue reserved had to be raised in a trial and could not be reserved by a nolo plea.
On July 15, 1991, Judge Gallen granted Watkins’ post-conviction motion to the extent that it requested a belated appeal in case number 90-1282. Judge Gallen’s order did not mention the remaining points in Watkins’ motion concerning case number 90-1593. On July 25, 1991, Watkins filed a pro se notice of appeal, which this court recognizes as a direct appeal in case number 90-1282 and as an appeal from the denial of his motion for postconviction relief in both cases.
As to the appeal in case number 90-1282, Watkins correctly argues that the trial court exceeded the statutory maximum in sentencing him to concurrent ten-year terms for the two third-degree felonies.. A trial court may not impose an illegal sentence, even if it is pursuant to a plea agreement. Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1986). Therefore, we remand case number 90-1282 to the trial court for resentencing to a maximum of five years for each offense.
Watkins also argues that the trial court erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on his rule 3.850 motion. That motion requested relief in case numbers 90-1593 and 90-1282. In its order, the trial court granted a belated appeal in case number 90-1282, but failed to address the remaining issues in the motion. The court did not attach to its order any portion of the record to refute Watkins’ allegations.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Watkins’ motion. On remand, unless the files and records of the case conclusively show that Watkins is entitled to no relief, the court shall order the state attorney to file an answer within a time certain. After receipt of the answer, the court shall determine whether an evidentiary hearing is required. If the court should again deny the motion, Watkins has thirty days in which to appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
FRANK, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur. . Watkins v. State, 582 So. 2d 106 (Fla.2d DCA 1991).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dyer v. State, 629 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…fact that his sentence was the result of a valid plea agreement does not make the sentence imposed a legal sentence. The trial court cannot impose an illegal sentence even if the sentence is pursuant to a valid plea agreement. See Watkins v. State, 613 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1986), receded from on other grounds, Quarterman v. State, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1988). We reverse the denial of the 3.800(a) motion and remand with directions that Dyer be resentenced. Alth…
-
Jobie Skitka v. State, 627 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…ee felony. Third degree felonies are punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term of five years. Section 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1989). A trial court cannot impose an illegal sentence, even if it is pursuant to a plea agreement. Watkins v. State, 613 So. 2d 1350, 1351 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The sentence in case 90-187 is vacated and the court shall resentence Skitka within the five year maximum term, or after proper notice, shall provide Skitka with the opportunity to withdraw his plea as to the violation of…
-
Kendrick Devlin v. State, 805 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…empted to kill the victim by stabbing and beating her with a tire iron. . We note that even though Devlin entered into a negotiated plea, the trial court may not impose an illegal sentence even though it is part of a plea bargain. Watkins v. State, 613 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1986)
- Watkins v. State, 582 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)