JOHN HESTER, 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.
The trial court did not err in denying the motion to correct an illegal sentence because the sentence was imposed in accordance with the statute in effect at the time of the offense.
[1] A sentence imposed under a statute in effect at the time of the offense and sentencing is lawful, even if the statute was later amended.
[2] A motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is properly denied when the sentence was imposed in accordance with the la…
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 intelligenceJohn Hester appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming his life sentence for robbery without a firearm was ill…
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 Sentencing Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
John Hester appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Hester stated in his motion that he was sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence for a conviction of robbery without a firearm on March 6, 1975. Hester claimed that he was illegally sentenced to life because the trial court erroneously enhanced the robbery conviction by sentencing him pursuant to section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1973), which, according to Hester, had been changed at the time of his sentencing to section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1975). In denying Hester’s motion, the trial court noted that Hester was sentenced in accor dance with section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1973), which was the law in effect at the time Hester committed the offense.
Section 813.011 states, in pertinent part, that a court may sentence an individual to a term of years up to a life sentence when that person has been convicted of simple robbery without a firearm.1 This statute was amended and transferred to chapter 812; robbery without a firearm became a second-degree felony punishable by a maximum of fifteen years’ incarceration. See § 812.13(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (Supp. 1974). However, section 812.13(2), as amended, did not take effect until July 1, 1975, which was after Hester’s date of offense and sentencing date. See Ch. 74-383, § 38, at 1244, Laws of Fla. Therefore, the trial court appropriately sentenced Hester under section 813.011. Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying Hester’s motion to correct an illegal sentence is affirmed.
. Section 813.011, Florida Statutes (1973), states: "Whoever, by force, violence or assault or putting in fear, feloniously robs, steals and takes away from the person or custody of another, money or other property which may be the subject of larceny, shall be guilty of a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any lesser term of years, at the discretion of the court.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 803 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)….200(a)(1) (“Except as otherwise designated by the parties, the record shall consist of the original documents, exhibits, and [*845] transcript(s) of proceedings, if any, filed in the lower tribunal.... ”); Wilson, 802 So. 2d at 360; Allen v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 & n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Howard v. State, 724 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Poole v. State, 659 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (in rule 3.800(a) claim that consecutive minimum mandatory HVFO sentences were illegal where acts arose from single cri…
-
Young v. State, 787 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…His claim is facially insufficient as a rule 3.800(a) motion because he failed to assert that the determination of whether the offenses were part of the same criminal episode could be made “without resort to extra-record facts.” See Allen v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Adams v. State, 755 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We, therefore, affirm this claim without prejudice to any right Young might have to file a facially sufficient claim under rule 3.800(a) or a timely motion under rule 3.850. We…
-
Varrow Lucious Davis v. State, 784 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…in violation of Hale v. State, 630 So. 2d 521 (Fla.1993), in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), providing that he alleges that the claim may be determined [*1206] from the face of the record. See Allen v. State, 779 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Affirmed. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J„ concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence