MATTHEW FITZPATRICK, 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.
Court reversed denial of Rule 3.800(a) motion because the sentence on a second-degree felony count exceeded the statutory maximum of fifteen years when confinement and probation were combined.
A sentence on a second-degree felony that exceeds fifteen years when confinement and probation are combined is illegal and subject to correction in a collateral proceeding.
[1] A sentence on a second-degree felony is illegal and subject to correction in a collateral proceeding under Rule 3.800(a) if the combined term of confinement and probation…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“To the extent that the sentence on this count exceeds fifteen years, it is illegal and subject to correction in a collateral proceeding.”
Court explaining that sentences exceeding statutory maximums are subject to correction even if they comply with sentencing guidelines.
Fitzpatrick received concurrent sentences totaling twenty years' imprisonment and probationary supervision across multiple counts, including at least …
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 Second-Degree Felony Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Matthew Fitzpatrick challenges the denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) wherein he sought relief from the imposition of concur rent sentences of ten years in prison followed by ten years’ probation. As one aspect of his claim which is facially sufficient has not been refuted by the trial court, we reverse.
Fitzpatrick’s sentence, contrary to his assertions, comports with that required by the sentencing guidelines, which calls for a term in the permitted range of 5Y¿ to 12 years. He represents that on all counts he was sentenced to an aggregate of twenty years’ imprisonment and probationary supervision, all concurrent with one another, and his score-sheet confirms that one of these crimes constitutes a second-degree felony for which the statutory maximum is fifteen years. To the extent that the sentence on this count exceeds fifteen years, it is illegal and subject to correction in a collateral proceeding. Grissom, v. State, 679 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Stephens v. State, 677 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
Unless Fitzpatrick has misrepresented the sentence he received on the second-degree felony, the trial court on remand must resen-tenee him to a term on that count in which the confinement and supervision together do not exceed fifteen years.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stephens v. State, 677 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Routenberg v. State, 677 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Grissom v. State, 679 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)