SOLOMON ENGLISH, 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.
Solomon English appealed the denial of his rule 3.800 motion ten years after pleading guilty to Failure to Appear, claiming his five-year probationary sentence was illegal because he was sentenced under the misdemeanor subsection rather than the felony subsection of Florida's Failure to Appear statute. The court affirmed his conviction and sentence but corrected typographical errors in the probation orders to reflect the correct felony statute section.
English was properly convicted under the felony subsection because he was charged with and released in connection with felony charges, making section 843.15(1)(a) applicable regardless of whether the underlying charges were later pleaded down to misdemeanors. The conviction and sentence were affirmed, but typographical errors in the probation orders were corrected to reflect the proper felony statute section.
[1] A defendant charged with a felony, even if later convicted of a misdemeanor, is subject to the felony provisions for failure to appear.
[2] A typographical error in probation orders that incorrectly cites the statutory subsection for a failure to appear conviction can be corrected on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“This charge is a third-degree felony if the defendant has failed to appear on felony charges; however, it is only a first-degree misdemeanor if the defendant has failed to appear on misdemeanor charges.”
Establishes the statutory distinction between the two subsections based on whether the underlying charges are felonies or misdemeanors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEnglish was charged with felonies (aggravated assault and battery) but later the offenses were pleaded down to misdemeanors. He was convicted of Failu…
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 Misdemeanor Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
[*507] PER CURIAM.
Ten years after a plea of guilty, the defendant appeals the denial of his 3.800 motion. He claims his five-year probationary sentence for his Failure of Defendant on Bail To Appear conviction was illegal. This charge is a third-degree felony if the defendant has failed to appear on felony charges; however, it is only a first-degree misdemeanor if the defendant has failed to appear on misdemeanor charges. The defendant claims he was sentenced under the misdemeanor subsection, section 843.15(l)(b), Florida Statutes, not the felony subsection, section 843.15(l)(a), Florida Statutes. He says that although the underlying charges were aggravated assault and battery he was only convicted of misdemeanors. He misreads the statute. Even if he wasn’t convicted of felonies and later pled the offenses down to misdemeanors, he was charged with felonies, and he is governed by section 843.15(l)(a), which states: “If he was released in connection with a charge of felony or while awaiting sentence ... [he is] guilty of a felony of the third degree....”
While he was properly convicted of the felony charge, there is a typographical error in the record. The judgment properly states he entered a plea of guilty to “Failure To Appear” under “843.15(l)(a)>” a “3F” crime. However, the probation documents are incorrect. Both the “Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation” and the “Order of Modification of Probation” state that he pled guilty to section 843.15(l)(b), the misdemeanor subsection. Therefore, the typographical error in the probation orders which states that the defendant violated “843.15(l)(b)” is hereby changed to “843.15(l)(a).”
CONVICTION and SENTENCE AFFIRMED; PROBATION ORDERS CORRECTED.
DAUKSCH, HARRIS and ANTOON, JJ., concur.