GEORGE W. PARKS, JR., 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 Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether unpreserved sentencing errors constituting fundamental error could be corrected on direct appeal during a specific procedural window period. The Court held that general sentences violating the sentencing rule established in Dorfman v. State and sentences exceeding statutory maximums constitute fundamental sentencing errors subject to correction, and remanded for resentencing.
The Court held that both general sentences and sentences exceeding statutory maximums constitute patent and serious fundamental sentencing errors that can be corrected on direct appeal during the specified window period. The use of general sentences in the case numbers cited made it impossible to determine the sentence for each count, and the sentences imposed exceeded the statutory maximum for the third-degree felony counts.
[1] General sentences are prohibited in Florida.
[2] A sentence that exceeds the maximum sentence allowed by statute constitutes a fundamental sentencing error that can be raised on direct appeal during the window period.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“general sentences have been prohibited in Florida since Dorfman v. State, 351 So.2d 954 (Fla.1977)”
Establishes the longstanding prohibition on general sentences in Florida sentencing law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParks was sentenced in two cases (94-86 and 95-486), each containing multiple counts. The trial court imposed general sentences without specifying whi…
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 General Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Parks v. State, 719 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), 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).
Parks raises three unpreserved sentencing errors that he contends constitute fundamental error: (1) the use of a general sentence in case numbers 94-86 and 95-486, which include more than one count in violation of Carter v. State, 689 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), Cruz v. State, 674 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), and Inclima v. State, 570 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); (2) his sentences of twelve years’ probation exceed the statutory maximum for third-degree felonies; and (3) when imposing a new sentence after revoking probation, the court failed to credit his probationary sentence with the time Parks had previously served on probation, resulting in a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum in violation of Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1995), and State v. Summers, 642 So. 2d 742 (Fla.1994).
As for the first error asserted by Parks, “[gjeneral sentences have been prohibited in Florida since Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977).” Inclima, 570 So. 2d at 1034.
We find that this error is patent and serious because it has a qualitative effect on the sentencing process, and therefore should be corrected as funda mental error during the window period.1 See Maddox, 760 So. 2d at 94. As for the second error asserted by Parks, we recently concluded in Maddox that a sentence that exceeds the maximum sentence allowed by statute constitutes a fundamental sentencing error that can be raised on direct appeal during the window period. 760 So. 2d at 94. In this case, although the use of a general sentence in case numbers 94-86 and 95-486 makes it impossible to determine what sentence was received for each count, the sentences imposed exceeded the statutory maximum for the third-degree felony counts in each case. We therefore 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
Cited By
-
Gibson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 828 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…ent of Corrections had no authority to amalgamate the two sentences on which he was incarcerated with his other sentences to create a general sentence. Imposition of a general sentence for multiple offenses is fundamental error. See Parks v. State, 765 So. 2d 35, 35-36 (Fla.2000); Kissel v. State, 757 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). “The evil of a general sentence ... inheres in the uncertainty that its inscrutability creates.” Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954, 957 (Fla.1977). A general sentence for mu…
-
Ewell v. State, 852 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…argument lacks merit. General sentences are those which impose a single sentence for multiple counts. For example, imposing a sentence of ten years incarceration for two counts is a general sentence. General sentences are prohibited. Parks v. State, 765 So. 2d 35 (Fla.2000). However, the lower court, both orally and in writing, sentenced Ewell to two consecutive terms of five years in prison on counts one and two, for a total of ten years. This sentence was not a general sentence. [*438] We affirm the judgme…
-
State v. Garcia, 279 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 2022)…gal sentence. See Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296, 305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (reversing a fifteen-year mandatory minimum sentence as an illegal sentence in excess of the statutory maximum despite the lack of objection in the lower court); Parks v. State, 765 So. 2d 35, 35-36 (Fla. 2000) (holding the defendant’s sentence of twelve years’ probation illegal despite the lack of an objection because it exceeded the statutory maximum for the thirddegree felonies of which he had been convicted). We have also found funda…
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 (12 total)
- 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)
- Carder v. State, 642 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 1994)
- Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)
- 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)
- Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1995)
- Inclima v. State, 570 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Parks v. State, 719 So. 2d 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Cruz v. State, 674 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)