MICHAEL BEDFORD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
An illegal sentence may be corrected even after it has been affirmed.
Petitioner's kidnapping sentence included a provision making him ineligible for parole, which was affirmed in a prior appeal. Petitioner sought correc…
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 Parole Eligibility cases and more on FLexlaw
McDonald, justice.
We exercise our discretion and review Bedford v. State, 617 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We have jurisdiction under the seldom applicable “all writs” provision of article V, section 3(b)(7) of the Florida Constitution.
We previously had jurisdiction of Bedford’s kidnapping sentence in conjunction with his appeal from a conviction of first-degree murder and a sentence of death. Bedford v. State, 589 So. 2d 245 (Fla.1991). In that appeal we vacated Bedford’s death sentence with directions to impose a life sentence on the murder charge, but affirmed his kidnapping sentence of life which had been one for life without eligibility of parole. Our attention had not been directed to the correctness of the kidnapping sentence.
Bedford claims the kidnapping sentence is illegal and may be corrected. The district court denied relief on the rationale that we had previously affirmed that sentence and because the law of the case precluded review. Judge Anstead dissented, urging that an illegal sentence may be corrected at any time. We agree with the dissent of Judge Anstead, and for the reasons expressed therein, we hold that an illegal sentence may be corrected even after it has been erroneously affirmed.
In reviewing Bedford’s sentence we find that the only illegal part of the sentence is the prohibition of eligibility for parole. The judge could legally impose a life sentence in the kidnapping charge, but could not preclude eligibility for parole for kidnapping. The appropriate remedy, therefore, is to strike the provision relative to parole for the kidnapping charge.
The decision of the district court is quashed, and Bedford’s kidnapping sentence is modified by striking the provision that states that Bedford is ineligible for parole for twenty-five years.*
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. *
This does not affect his sentence for first-degree murder.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)…raising of these errors should be consistent. Having said this, we turn to Davis’s contentions. First, we address Davis’s claim that his sentence is “illegal.” Clearly, an illegal sentence is one that can be addressed at any time. Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1994). We have previously rejected, however, the contention that the failure to file written findings for a departure sentence constitutes an illegal sentence. See Gartrell v. State, 626 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993) (a sentence to less than the guid…
-
Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…uccessive rule 3.800(a) proceedings because the rule exists for the purpose of addressing illegal sentences. See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1196 (Fla. 1995); Hayes v. State, 598 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). For example, in Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1994), Bedford was convicted of first degree murder and kidnapping and was sentenced to the death penalty for the murder and a term of life in prison without eligibility for parole for the kidnapping. On direct appeal, the supreme court vacated…
-
Nelson v. State, 719 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ly constitute fundamental error, and may therefore be challenged for the first time on direct appeal. It should also be recognized that the supreme court has held that an illegal sentence may be corrected “at any time.” See Davis; Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1994). In light of Sanders, and subsequent decisions in which we have applied its holding, the unpre-served sentencing error in the present case may be remedied in this direct appeal if the resulting sentence is illegal. Davis, Callaway, and K…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bedford v. State, 589 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 1991)
- Bedford v. State, 617 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)