MICHAEL FLOYD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1242] PER CURIAM.
Michael Floyd is appealing the summary denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the sentence imposed on Floyd exceeds the statutory maximum, we reverse.
Floyd pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). He was sentenced under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), as a habitual offender to ten years in prison, and was fined $10,000. However, section 775.084 does not authorize any fines. Consequently, the imposition of the fine, in addition to the habitual offender sentence, exceeds the maximum allowed by the statute, and must be reversed. See Webster v. State, 705 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). On remand, the trial court is directed to strike the $10,000 fine. Floyd’s presence at the resentencing is not required.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willits v. State, 884 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…t his sentence for armed robbery is illegal because section 775.084 does not authorize any fines. The imposition of a fine in addition to the habitual offender sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by the statute and must be reversed. Floyd v. State, 739 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Webster v. State, 705 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). On remand, the trial court must strike the $268 fine plus the 5% surcharge. Willits’ presence at the resentencing is not required. Reversed in part; affirmed in part; and rem…
-
Baker v. State, 941 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…e is imposed pursuant to the habitual offender provisions in section 775.084. See King v. State, 681 So. 2d 1136 (Fla.1996); Willits v. State, 884 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Webster v. State, 705 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In Floyd v. State, 739 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), this court appeared to extend the holding in Webster to apply to a fine imposed under the 1991 version of section 893.135(l)(b)(l)(a). On closer examination, that does not seem to be what occurred in Floyd. The fine imposed in Fl…
-
Chantz Harper v. State, 889 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…part, reversed in part, and remanded. CANADY and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. . We note that Harper also contends that imposing a fine in addition to a habitual offender sentence exceeds the maximum allowed by statute. He is correct. See Floyd v. State, 739 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Webster v. State, 705 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). However, because he will be resen-tenced according to the sentencing guidelines, his habitual offender designation will be stricken, rendering the fine permissible.…
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
- Webster v. State, 705 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)