AARON IVY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
The order denying the motion to correct illegal sentence is affirmed, not because the motion is legally insufficient but because appellant’s sentence is not illegal. See Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (sentence resulting from negotiated plea that exceeds guidelines range and which is based on incorrectly calculated score sheet is not illegal for purposes of motion to correct sentence as long as it does not exceed statutory maximum); Gibson v. State, 619 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (affirming appellant’s sentence notwithstanding trial court’s use of incorrect and erroneously calculated sentencing guidelines score sheet, where trial court sentenced appellant pursuant to valid plea agreement).
AFFIRMED.
WARNER, C.J., DELL and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)…tial. This determination was necessary because to revoke probation or community control, a violation must always be determined to have been willful and substantial. See generally Thomas v. State, 760 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); McCray v. State, 754 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Inman v. State, 684 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Green v. State, 620 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). By placing reliance on Allen, the State is attempting to equate the term “substantial” with “substantive,” as used in sectio…
-
Mortimer v. State, 770 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…he guidelines. It is well-settled that when a defendant enters a negotiated plea for a term of years, relying upon an incorrectly calculated scoresheet, such sentence is not illegal so long as it does not exceed the statutory maximum. Ivy v. State, 754 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Gibson v. State, 619 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) and cases cited therein; Kleppinger v. State, 760 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Gainer v. State, 590 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 1s…
-
Stewart v. State, 926 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…002). This determination is necessary because to revoke probation or community control, a violation must always be determined to have been willful and substantial. See generally Thomas v. State, 760 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); McCray v. State, 754 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Inman v. State, 684 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Green v. State, 620 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982, 987 (Fla.2001). “The State bears the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation o…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Skidmore v. State, 688 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Uvanni v. Dott G.C. Gallenga, M.D., 619 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)