TOMMY SANDERS, 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.
A defendant convicted of sexual battery and three other crimes appeals his sentence, arguing that the 20-year prison term imposed for sexual battery exceeds the statutory maximum of 15 years. The appellate court agrees that an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that can be challenged on direct appeal even without preservation, and vacates all sentences for resentencing.
An illegal sentence exceeding the statutory maximum constitutes fundamental error and may be challenged on direct appeal without prior preservation. The appellate court vacated all of Sanders' sentences and remanded the case for resentencing on all four crimes.
[1] An illegal sentence, which exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense, constitutes fundamental error and may be challenged for the first time on direct appeal.
[2] A sentence that is in excess of the statutory maximum for the offense is considered illegal.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“An illegal sentence is regarded with such disdain by the law that it, unlike other trial court errors, may be challenged for the first time by way of collateral proceedings instituted even decades after such a sentence has been imposed.”
Establishes the unique status of illegal sentences and their extraordinary remedial provisions under law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTommy Sanders was convicted of sexual battery in violation of Florida Statute section 794.011(5), a second-degree felony punishable by up to 15 years …
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 Direct Criminal Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
ALLEN, Judge.
In this direct criminal appeal, the appellant challenges as excessive the sentence imposed by the trial court for sexual battery in violation of section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (1995), one of four crimes of which the appellant was convicted and for which he was sentenced. Section 794.011(5) sexual battery is a second degree felony punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding fifteen years. The trial court nevertheless imposed a sentence of twenty years imprisonment followed by fifteen years probation for the offense.
The appellee contends that the appellant failed to preserve the issue for appeal by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) or by objecting at sentencing as required by section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996). But section 924.051 does not preclude an appellate challenge to an unpreserved sentencing error that constitutes fundamental error. Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
The error asserted by the appellant in the present case must be classified as fundamental. The sentence for sexual battery is in excess of the statutory maximum for the offense and is therefore “illegal.” See King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1996); Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995); State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla.1995). An illegal sentence is regarded with such disdain by the law that it, unlike other trial court errors, may be challenged for the first time by way of collateral proceedings instituted even decades after such a sentence has been imposed. See Callaway. The extraordinary provision made for remedying illegal sentences evidences the utmost importance of correcting such errors, even at the expense of legal principles that might preclude relief from trial court errors of less consequence. In light of this, illegal sentences necessarily constitute fundamental error, and may therefore be challenged for the first time on direct appeal.
Vacating the sentence for sexual battery would affect the overall sentencing scheme in this case. Accordingly, we vacate all of the appellant’s sentences, and we remand this case to the trial court for resentencing as to all four crimes.
WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…xtraordinary provision made for remedying illegal sentences evidences the utmost importance of correcting such errors, even at the expense of legal principles that might preclude relief from trial court errors of less consequence.” Sanders v. State, 698 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); see Nelson, 719 So. 2d at 1232. Thus, even where the defendant has pleaded guilty, the trial court may not impose a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum. See King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136, 1140 (Fla.1996); Williams v.…
-
Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…(Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We also disagree that sentencing errors can be raised on direct appeal without preservation, simply because the sentence that results is illegal. See, e.g., State v. Hewitt, 702 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Sanders v. State, 698 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Finally, it seems clear that review under section 924.051 is broader than that permitted under Robinson, in that it extends to unlawful sentences, if properly preserved. At the intermediate appellate level, we are accustomed to…
-
Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…. An institution charged with the duty to punish illegal conduct must not itself be seen to engage in illegality. When we discover that we have done so, we must undo our transgression regardless of when or how it was uncovered. See Sanders v. State, 698 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (explaining that illegal sentences are regarded with disdain by the law); Hayes v. State, 598 So. 2d 135, 138 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (stating that when an illegal sentence is discovered, the system should willingly remedy it) (…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Callaway, 658 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1995)
- King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1996)
- Neal v. State, 688 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)