MARK CHARLES, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 court held that the decision below should be quashed and remanded for proceedings in light of Maddox v. State, as the parties had not adequately briefed the merits of the alleged sentencing error.
Charles argued that a sentencing error occurred when his revocation of probation sentence failed to award credit for time served on his primary offens…
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
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Charles v. State, 751 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as controlling authority its opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420 (Fla.1981).
Charles argues that a sentencing error occurred under Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), when the sentence imposed upon his revocation of probation failed to award credit for time served on his primary offense. In addition, Charles contends that because his underlying offense was committed before October 1, 1989, he is entitled to credit for accrued gain time as the functional equivalent of time spent in prison. If a sentencing error occurred that is patent and serious because it has a quantitative effect on the sentence and a quahtative effect on the sentencing process, the error should be corrected as fundamental error. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 99 (Fla.2000).1 Because the parties have not adequately briefed the merits of the alleged sentencing error at issue, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings in light of our opinion in Maddox.
It is so ordered.
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur. . In Maddox, we addressed the question of whether unpreserved sentencing errors should be corrected in appeals filed in the window period between the effective date of section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), and our recent amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) in Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140, & 9.600, 761 So. 2d 1015 (Fla.1999), reh’g granted, 761 So. 2d at 1025. The appeal in this case falls within the window period discussed in Maddox.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008)
-
Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Although we recognize this as a patent error, it is not a serious or fundamental error, and we are powerless to order the court to strike references to that condition from the order. See Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000); Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000). Affirmed. FULMER, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J„ concur.…
-
Sheena Latson v. State, 193 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…l. Because Appellant did not raise this claim to the trial court either by objection at sentencing or by motion to correct sentencing error- pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), she is not entitled to relief. See Thomas v. State, 763 So. 2d 316, 316 n. 1 (Fla.2000) (refusing to correct an unpreserved scrivener’s error where neither the defendant nor the State sought to correct it by filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)); Perkins v. Sta…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)
- Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Amendments TO Fla. Rules OF Crim. Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. Rules OF App. Procedure 9.020(h), 791 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2001)
- Charles v. State, 751 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Braswell v. State, 751 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)