JAMES PETRON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1998-04-22
No. 97-3257
MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., and McDonald, PARKER LEE, Senior Judge, concur.
710 So. 2d 168 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1998)

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

James Petron appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence imposed in 1986 for attempted first-degree murder and other crimes. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that Petron's sentence was legal and that a subsequent change in law (Heuring) did not apply retroactively to sentences that were final before the decision.


Holding

The court held that Petron's sentence was not illegal because his attempted first-degree murder with a firearm was a life felony and his sentence fell well within statutory limits. The court further held that Heuring, decided in 1990, has no retroactive application to sentences that were final before its rendition.


Headnotes

[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a) cannot be used to challenge a sentence that is not illegal.

[2] A sentence imposed within statutory limits is not 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

Key Quotes

“His sentence fell well within that limit and was not illegal. See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Hence he cannot question it in a 3.800(a) motion.”

Establishes that because the sentence was within statutory limits for a life felony, it was legal and could not be challenged under rule 3.800(a)

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

In 1986, Petron pleaded no contest to attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, uttering, battery of a law enforcement officer, and burglary of a …

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.

Appellant, James Petron, appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to eorrect an illegal sentence. We affirm.

Appellant pled no contest to attempted first degree murder, uttering, battery of a law enforcement officer, and burglary of a dwelling, in 1986. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent twenty, three, five, and ten-year sentences, respectively. On the attempted murder count, the trial court also ordered that appellant be placed on probation for the remainder of the twenty years, if he should be released from prison before twenty years had passed. Because of accrued gain-time, Petron was released on December 6, 1990, and placed on probation until March 24, 2005 — twenty years from the date on which he was first placed in custody.

Relying on Heuring v. State, 559 So. 2d 207 (Fla.1990), Petron seeks the cancellation of the probation imposed in the original sentence. Petron’s crime of attempted first degree murder with a firearm was a life felony pursuant to sections 775.087, 777.04, and 782.04, Florida Statutes (1985). His sentence fell well within that limit and was not illegal. See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995). Hence he cannot question it in a 3.800(a) motion.1 We further observe that Heuring was decided in 1990 and at a time subsequent to any opportunity for the trial judge to adjust the sentence had he chosen to do so.2 We conclude that Heuring has no retroactive application to sentences that were final before its rendition.

AFFIRMED.

MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., and McDonald, PARKER LEE, Senior Judge, concur. . While the judgment and sentence might be interpreted as attempting to place appellant on probation until twenty years had passed for the other three counts, this would create "illegal” sentences. Appellant has completed his sentences for the other three crimes, and we address only the sentence for attempted murder. . Cf. Jordan v. State, 568 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)(identical sentence challenged on direct appeal and remanded for proper inclusion of probation because it was apparent that the probationary period was of critical importance to the trial court).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw