HAROLD RILEY LANE, 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 increasing a legal sentence on one count while correcting an illegal sentence on another count is improper.
Appellant pled to felonies and received a sentence. After postconviction relief, the court corrected a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum, but a…
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
PER CURIAM.
Harold Lane appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. We reverse.
The appellant pled to two third degree felonies pursuant to an agreement for a twelve-year nonhabitual prison sentence. The court initially sentenced him as a habitual offender to two years in prison on count I, uttering a forged instrument, and to a consecutive ten-year prison sentence on count II, grand theft. As a result of a prior motion for postconviction relief, the court deleted the habitual offender status. Thereafter the appellant filed another motion, correctly contending that the ten-year nonhabitual sen tence for grand theft exceeded the statutory maximum. The court then amended his total sentence to two consecutive nonhabitual five-year prison terms.
Increasing the sentence on count I constituted an improper modification of a legal sentence. See Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (while correcting illegal sentence on one count, court may not modify legal sentence on another count). Thus, the court should have corrected the term on count II only, rather than also increase the legal sentence on count I. We therefore strike the sentence of five years imposed on count I and reinstate the original sentence of two years.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seago v. State, 627 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…43 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), held that a trial court, when correcting an illegal sentence on one count of an information, does not have the authority to modify legal sentences that have been rendered on the other counts. See also Lane v. State, 627 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA Nov. 24, 1993); Fasenmyer v. State, 457 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1035, 105 S.Ct. 1407, 84 L.Ed.2d 796 (1985). Reversed and remanded with directions to the trial court to reinstate the original sentences on counts…
-
Jones v. State, 651 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…ectly concedes, the trial court erred by increasing the defendant’s sentence in Count II from fifteen years concurrent to the other counts, to seven years consecutive to Count I. See Seago v. State, 627 So. 2d 1316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Lane v. State, 627 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse the consecutive sentence of seven years in Count II, with directions to the trial court to reinstate the defendant’s original sentence of fifteen years concurrent to the other counts. Reversed and rema…
-
Haynes v. State, 962 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…tacking on a seven-year probationary term. See Pitts v. State, 935 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“A motion to correct an illegal sentence does not authorize the trial court to modify a legal sentence imposed on another count.”); Lane v. State, 627 So. 2d 556, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to strike drug offender probation from the sentence on count two in case 02-13110; otherwise, we affirm. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. K…
Authorities Cited
- Neilsen Arelen Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)