FRANKLIN CURTIS, 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 the trial court erred in denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence without refuting the defendant's claim.
The defendant was sentenced to two different prison terms after probation revocation, one significantly longer than the statutory maximum for the crim…
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 Statutory Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Franklin Curtis timely appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the trial court failed to refute Curtis’s allegation that his sentence is illegal, we reverse.
In case number 80-10642, Curtis was charged by information with armed robbery in violation of section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1979). After pleading guilty, Curtis was placed on five years’ probation. Following a revocation of his probation, Curtis was sentenced to prison but the record before us reveals that two different sentences were imposed: a five year sentence set forth in the order of revocation and a ninety-nine year sentence according to the judgment. Curtis asserts that he pled guilty to simple robbery, not armed robbery. Therefore, he argues, the ninety-nine year sentence exceeds the statutory maximum of fifteen years for simple robbery.
An illegal sentence is one that exceeds the statutory maximum. Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Curtis has alleged that he received an illegal sentence and nothing in the record before us refutes that claim. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of Curtis’s motion. On remand, the trial court must attach portions of the record refuting this claim or, if necessary, hold a limited evidentiary hearing to determine whether Curtis was convicted of simple robbery or armed robbery. See Black v. State, 587 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA1991).
Reversed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Espinosa, 686 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 1996)…OVERTON, Justice. We have for review Espinosa v. State, 668 So. 2d 1116, 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), in which the district court reversed Richard Espinosa’s conviction for resisting an officer without violence due to insufficient evidence and certified the following question as one of great public importance: IS RESISTIN…
-
Kirk v. State, 708 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…to instruct the jury on a permissive lesser included offense: resisting arrest without violence.2 We agree. At trial, the defense requested an instruction on resisting arrest without violence. The trial court refused, relying on Espinosa v. State, 668 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 5th DCA), quashed, 686 So. 2d 1345 (Fla.1996). In that case, this court indicated that resisting arrest without violence and resisting arrest with [*637] violence were different crimes because resisting without violence required proof of a law…
-
Crevitz v. State, 673 So. 2d 168 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…rict Court of Appeal has recently certified the following question as one of great public importance: IS RESISTING AN OFFICER'WITHOUT VIOLENCE (Section 843.02) A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF RESISTING WITH VIOLENCE (Section 843.01)? Espinosa v. State, 668 So. 2d 1116, 1118 (Fla. 5th DCA), review pending, No. 87, 633 (Fla. April 22, 1996); see also Foreshaw v. State, 639 So. 2d 683, 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Compare Lee v. State, 368 So. 2d 395, 396 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 349 (Fla.1979)…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Black v. State, 587 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)