STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,
v.
TIMOTHY SCHEBEL, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court dismissed a case seeking review of whether consecutive sentences exceeding six years imposed on a youthful offender constitute illegal sentences under Florida law. The Court lacked sufficient factual record to determine the certified questions and declined to issue an advisory opinion.
The Supreme Court dismissed the case without reaching the merits of the certified questions because the record lacked the necessary factual foundation, including the actual sentences imposed, making it impossible to determine whether the issues were properly presented.
[1] A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for a youthful offender may be considered an "illegal" sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] Claims regarding incorrect credit for time served or gain time earned, resulting in a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for youthful offenders, may be cognizable u…
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“Like the district court, this Court lacks the necessary facts to make a determination of the issues raised by the certified questions in this case.”
Establishes the Court's rationale for dismissal: insufficient factual record
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTimothy Schebel, a youthful offender under Chapter 958, Florida Statutes, challenged his sentence as exceeding the statutory maximum for youthful offe…
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 Gain Time cases and more on FLexlaw
HARDING, C.J.
The State of Florida seeks review of a decision of the First District Court of Appeal. The district court’s opinion certified the following questions to be of great public importance:
1. WHETHER CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES EXCEEDING SIX YEARS IMPOSED UPON A DEFENDANT SENTENCED AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER UNDER CHAPTER 958, FLORIDA STATUTES (1989), EITHER INITIALLY OR UPON REVOCATION OF PROBATION OR COMMUNITY CONTROL, CONSTITUTE “ILLEGAL” SENTENCES WITHIN THE MEANING OF FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.800(a), AS THAT TERM HAS BEEN DEFINED IN DAVIS v. STATE, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1196 (FLA.1995); STATE v. CALLAWAY, 658 So. 2d 983 (FLA 1995); AND KING v. STATE, 681 So. 2d 1136 (FLA.1996)?
2. WHETHER A CLAIM THAT A DEFENDANT, WHO HAS BEEN SENTENCED AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, HAS NOT BEEN AFFORDED THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF CREDIT FOR TIME PREVIOUSLY SERVED IN JAIL OR PRISON OR GAIN TIME EARNED FROM PREVIOUS INCARCERATIONS, WITH THE RESULT THAT HIS OR HER SENTENCE EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM FOR YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS, MAY BE CONSIDERED UNDER FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.800(a) IN LIGHT OF THE DEFINITION OF “ILLEGAL” SENTENCE SET OUT IN DAVIS v. STATE, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1196 (FLA.1995); STATE v. CALLAWAY, 658 So. 2d 983 (FLA.1995); AND KING v. STATE, 681 So. 2d 1136 (FLA1996), AND THE AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.800(b) AND SECTION 924.051, FLORIDA STATUTES (1995)?
State v. Schebel, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D556, D557 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 17,1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Timothy Schebel filed a motion for post conviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 in the Circuit Court of the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, alleging that his sentence was illegal as it exceeded the statutory maximum for a youthful offender. The trial court summarily denied his motion, and Schebel appealed to the First District Court of Appeal. The district court found that the issue raised was more properly cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800. The district court also noted that it was unable to determine whether Schebel was entitled to relief “because none of the sentences imposed was attached to the order or included in the record.” Schebel, 23 Fla. L. Weekly at D556. In addition to certifying the two questions to this Court, the district court reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the case with directions to attach those portions of the record that refute Schebel’s allegations and on which the trial court had based its summary denial. See id.
Like the district court, this Court lacks the necessary facts to make a determination of the issues raised by the certified questions in this case. Were we to base an opinion on the speculative facts Schebel alleges, our opinion would' necessarily be advisory in nature. Therefore, we conclude that jurisdiction in this case was improvidently granted. The case is therefore dismissed. It is so ordered.
SHAW, WELLS, ANSTEAD, and PARIENTE, JJ., and OVERTON and KOGAN, Senior Justices, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aundray Kelly v. State, 739 So. 2d 1164 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…s. The sentences in 97-30120, 97-30123 and 97-30124 are not youthful offender sentences and the trial court would not normally be bound by the youthful offender limitation. Cf. Schebel v. State, 721 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), appeal dismissed, 723 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1999), (consecutive youthful offender sentences exceeding applicable maximum of six years are illegal); Nguyen v. State, 566 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (sentencing court can impose any youthful offender sentence, so long as no matter how ma…
-
M.Z. v. State, 747 So. 2d 978 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…the statute would, in this case, be more akin to an impermissible advisory opinion based on a speculative set of facts than to a decision made within the context of an actual justi-ciable controversy between the parties. See, e.g., State v. Schebel, 723 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1999)(declining to base appellate jurisdiction on “speculative facts” because it would lead to an opinion which “would necessarily be advisory in nature”); Santa Rosa County v. Administration Comm’n, 661 So. 2d 1190, 1193 (Fla.1995) (“Florida c…
-
Bryant v. State, 859 So. 2d 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…lief under rule 3.800(a). See Shaw v. State, 826 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Hill v. State, 698 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Swilley v. State, 781 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Schebel v. State, 721 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) rev. dism. 723 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1999). The merit of Bryant’s claim may hinge on whether his violation of probation was substantive or technical. § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (1998); Swilley, 781 So. 2d at 459. The trial court denied the motion stating the sentencing documents showe…
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
- 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)