ROBERT LEE HINSON, JR., 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.
Hinson challenged a trial court's denial of his Rule 3.850 motion as untimely and successive, claiming his sentence as a youthful offender exceeded the statutory maximum. The court reversed, holding that sentences exceeding statutory limits are illegal and can be challenged at any time under Rule 3.850 or 3.800(a).
A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum is an illegal sentence that may be challenged at any time pursuant to Rule 3.850 or Rule 3.800(a), regardless of timing or succession rules, when the record does not conclusively refute the claim.
[1] A sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum is an illegal sentence and may be raised at any time.
[2] A motion to vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A motion to vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time”
Establishes that Rule 3.850(b) permits challenges to excessive sentences without time limitations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHinson was sentenced as a youthful offender and filed a Rule 3.850 motion claiming his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum allowed for youthful of…
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 Successive Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Robert Lee Hinson, Jr. challenges an order by which his Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850 motion was denied as untimely and successive. Hinson’s sole claim is that his sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for a youthful offender. We reverse.
In a footnote, the trial court’s order of denial indicated that even if Hinson was attempting to challenge the legality of his sentence, that was an issue for direct appeal or timely rule 3.850 motion. The trial court’s denial also relied in part on language from this court’s opinion in Mitchell v. State, 650 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), which provides, “[a]s for appellant’s second ground relating to youthful offender sentencing, such is not cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).” However, it is apparent from subsequent case law that a sentence that exceeds the maximum allowed by statute is an illegal sentence. See King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1996). Such a claim may be raised at any time pursuant to rule 3.850 or rule 3.800(a), depending upon whether an evidentiary hearing is required. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b) (“A motion to vacate a sentence that exceeds the limits provided by law may be filed at any time”); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a) (“A court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it”). Nothing in the record before us conclusively refutes Hinson’s allegations. Accordingly, we reverse. See Schebel v. State, No. 97-2879, — So. 2d - (Fla. 1st DCA February 17,1998) (reversing summary denial of untimely 3.850 claim that youthful offender sentence exceeded the six-year statutory maximum where record did not conclusively refute the claim); Hill v. State, 698 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing summary denial of 3.800 claim that sentence exceeded maximum permitted by Youthful Offender Act where record did not conclusively refute the claim). We certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:
Whether a sentence exceeding six years imposed upon a defendant sentenced as a youthful offender under chapter 958, Florida Statutes (1991), constitutes an “illegal sentence” within the meaning of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a)?
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
MINER and KAHN, JJ., concur. WEBSTER, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 726 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…edit for time Mr. Johnson served in jail before sentence was pronounced caused the sentences to exceed the statutory maximum for a youthful offender, rendering even the sentence on the armed burglary of a dwelling count illegal. See Hinson v. State, 709 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hill v. State, 698 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, we affirm both convictions, vacate the illegal sentences, and remand for resentencing. If the trial court simply orders credit for time served and reduces by a yea…
-
Lubins Louissaint v. State, 727 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…may impose on a defendant designated as a youthful offender. Because Louissaint’s sentence exceeds the statutory maximum permitted by the statute, his challenge to the legality of his sentence is cognizable by Rule 3.800 motion. See Hinson v. State, 709 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Hill v. State, 698 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). See also Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1988)(commitment as youthful offender exceeding six years is illegal). “We find no authority for' the proposition that a court may…
-
Chesson v. State, 729 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…sentence is one that exceeds the maximum period set forth by law for a particular offense without regard to the guidelines. See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1196 (Fla.1995); Wright v. State, 711 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Hinson v. State, 709 So. 2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); State v. Moten, 698 So. 2d 1345, 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The sentence imposed upon the ap*pellant is less than the statutory maximum sentence for the crimes tha…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1996)
- Hill v. State, 698 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Mitchell v. State, 650 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)