MICHAEL A. ANDERSON, 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.
Trial court properly denied appellant's Rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his armed burglary sentence as illegal, because the claim challenges jury verdict sufficiency rather than sentence legality.
A claim that a sentence for armed burglary is illegal because the jury made no finding of weapon possession challenges the sufficiency of the verdict, not the legality of the sentence itself.
[1] A claim that a sentence is illegal because the jury failed to find an element used to enhance or reclassify the offense challenges the sufficiency of the verdict, not the…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was sentenced to seventy-five years for armed burglary of a dwelling committed in April 1982, but the jury made no finding that he possessed…
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 Legality Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
The trial court denied appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion alleging that his sentence is illegal. The illegality, according to appellant, results from the fact that he was sentenced for committing armed burglary of a dwelling where the jury made no finding that he possessed a weapon. We affirm.
The offense in this case was committed in April, 1982, and the sentence appellant received for armed burglary was seventy-five years, which did not exceed the maximum sentence of life permitted by section 810.02(2)(a)(b), Florida Statutes (1981), for armed burglary of a dwelling.
Under analogous circumstances, the third district has held that this type of claim does not raise the illegality of a sentence, but rather challenges the sufficiency of the jury verdict to support the reclassification of a crime because of the possession of a weapon. Chanquet v. State, 646 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). See also State v. Moten, 698 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(a sentence which may have been improperly enhanced because the sale of the controlled substance was within 200 feet of a public housing facility is not an illegal sentence). Although the second district came to the opposite conclusion in White v. State, 688 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), we agree with Chan-quet and Moten. Affirmed.
STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Willems Calixte v. State, 53 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…tion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). It raises an issue not cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence, because he is attacking the judgment, not the sentence. See Anderson v. State, 758 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Treated as a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, the motion is untimely, and even considering the substance, his claim is meritless. He contends that the judge, state attorney,…
-
Hemingway v. State, 919 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. As to the first ground for relief, see State v. Mancino, 705 So. 2d 1379 (Fla.1998); Anderson v. State, 758 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA) (not cited), rev. denied, 779 So. 2d 269 (Fla.2000). As to the second ground, see; e.g., State v. Williams, 854 So. 2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), rev. denied, 869 So. 2d 541 (Fla. [*611] 2004); McCraney v. State, 830 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 5t…
-
Williams v. State, 49 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed, but for reasons different from those provided by the state below; the ground for relief is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Anderson v. State, 758 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Chanquet v. State, 646 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). GROSS, C.J., STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Moten, 698 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Chanquet v. State, 646 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Spinner v. State, 688 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- White v. State, 688 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)