KENNETH TAYLOR, 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 a defendant can raise an unpreserved sentencing error as fundamental error if it results in a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum.
[1] A defendant may raise an unpreserved sentencing error as fundamental error during the "window period" if the error results in a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum f…
[2] The "window period" refers to the time between the effective date of section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp. …
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTaylor claimed his probation violation sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony because he was not credited for time served o…
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 Credit For Time Served On Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Taylor v. State, 739 So. 2d 1277 (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).
In our recent opinion in Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000), we held that during the window period, the defendant can raise as fundamental error an unpreserved sentencing error that results in the defendant serving a sentence longer than the statutory maximum for the offense.1 Taylor claims that the sentence he received after violating his probation exceeds the statutory maximum of five years for a third-degree felony, see section 775.082, because the trial court failed to give him credit for time he had previously served on probation. Because the parties have not adequately briefed the merits of this issue, we remand for the Fifth District to determine whether the failure to credit Taylor with the time he previously served on probation resulted in a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum for the offense, which would constitute fundamental error under our opinion in Maddox. Therefore, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with 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
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1981)
- 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)
- Taylor v. State, 739 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)