DWAYNE A. BURKS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1997-08-13
No. 97-275
Before COPE and GREEN, JJ., and BARKDULL, Senior Judge.
698 So. 2d 874 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1997) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Dwayne Burks appealed the denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, illegal sentences, and failure to credit time served. The court affirmed the denial of the ineffective assistance claim but reversed and remanded on the sentencing and credit-for-time-served issues.


Holding

The court affirmed the denial of the ineffective assistance claim based on Burks' responses at the plea colloquy. However, the court reversed the sentences for possession of cocaine and sexual battery as illegal because they exceeded statutory maximums for offenses committed before January 1, 1994. The court also reversed the failure to provide credit for time previously served and remanded for resentencing with proper credit.


Headnotes

[1] A defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at a probation revocation hearing is belied by the defendant's own responses during the plea colloquy at that hea…

[2] For offenses committed prior to January 1, 1994, a sentence may not exceed the statutory maximum penalty for that offense.

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

Key Quotes

“It is well settled that for offenses committed prior to January 1, 1994, as here, a sentence may not exceed the statutory maximum penalty for that offense, § 921.001(5), Fla. Stat. (1991)”

Establishes the governing rule that invalidates sentences exceeding statutory maximums for pre-1994 offenses

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Burks was charged with three felonies in 1990: possession of cocaine (third degree), sale of controlled substance near school property (first degree),…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Dwayne A. Burks appeals the denial of his motion for post-conviction relief made pursuant to Rule 3.850, Fla.R.Crim.P. on the grounds that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the time of his plea, (2) the trial court imposed illegal sentences and, (3) he faded to receive credit for time previously served. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

On January 2, 1990, Burks was charged in case number 89^47780 with possession of cocaine, a third degree felony punishable by five years imprisonment. On March 7, 1990, he was charged in case number 90-6383 with the sale, purchase, or delivery of a controlled substance on or near school property, a first degree felony punishable by thirty years imprisonment. On August 17, 1990, Burks was charged in case number 90-9885 with sexual battery, a second degree felony punishable by fifteen years imprisonment.

On September 4, 1991, Burks entered a plea to all three charges. As to the possession charge, he was sentenced to five years imprisonment followed by ten years probation. On the sale of cocaine charge, Burks was sentenced to five years imprisonment followed by ten years probation. Lastly, on the sexual battery charge, Burks was sentenced to five years followed by ten years probation. All of these sentences were to run concurrently.

Burks served the five year concurrent sentence for each of these cases and was released from prison on February 12, 1993. He then began to serve the probationary sentence imposed. On March 31, 1995, Burks’ probation in each of these cases was revoked pursuant to his admission that he had committed a new offense. He was thereafter resentenced to thirty years imprisonment for the sexual battery and sale of controlled substance charges which was to run concurrently with his five year sentence on the possession of cocaine charge. Burks was given credit for time served in each of these eases. The sentencing order, however, did not provide for previous “prison credit.”

On July 29, 1996, Burks filed his motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Rule 3.850. As grounds, he asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective at his probation revocation hearing and that the sentence imposed by the trial court was illegal. The trial court’s denial of this motion prompted this appeal.

We find no merit as to Burks’ first claim as it is specifically belied by his responses given during his plea colloquy at the revocation hearing. We do, however, find merit to Burks’ assertions that sentences for the possession charge and the sexual battery charge are illegal where they exceed the statutory maximum sentences for offenses committed prior to January 1,1994.

It is well settled that for offenses committed prior to January 1, 1994, as here, a sentence may not exceed the statutory maximum penalty for that offense, § 921.001(5), Fla. Stat. (1991) — although the rule has been changed for offenses, unlike this case, committed on or after January 1, 1994. § 921.0014(1), Fla. Stat. (1993) (A sentence within the sentencing guidelines may be imposed even if it exceeds the statutory maximum sentence provided for that offense).

Fance v. State, 645 So. 2d 188, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Consequently, both the sentence and revocation of probation for the possession of cocaine conviction and the sentence for the sexual battery conviction must be vacated and this cause remanded to the trial court with instructions that it impose sentences not in excess of the statutory maximum for each offense.

Finally, the state properly concedes and we agree that the trial court erred when after revoking Burks’ probation and re-sentencing him to prison, it failed to indicate on the sentencing order that Burks was entitled to receive credit for time previously served on these offenses. See Trihue v. State, 682 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Accord- mgly, on remand, the trial court shall grant Burks credit for time previously served for these offenses.

Affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Jones v. State, 718 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
    …y of a controlled substance.4 All three were third degree felonies. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 5% years. For offenses committed prior to January 1, 1994, a sentence may not exceed the statutory penalty for that offense. Burks v. State, 698 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 8d DCA 1997); Fance v. State, 645 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Since Jones’ 1990 and 1991 crimes were committed prior to 1994, his sentences cannot exceed the statutory maximum for third degree felonies — five years. § 921.001(4)(b)4, Fla. S…
  • Hemphill v. State, 734 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
    …PER CURIAM. Based on the state’s proper confession of error, we reverse the order denying defendant Hemphill’s motion for post-conviction relief, Burks v. State, 698 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Richitelli v. State, 687 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Trihue v. State, 682 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and remand for correction of the sentencing order to reflect credit for all time previously served. Reversed and remand…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw