HERBERT L. KINSLER, 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 court affirmed the denial of a motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, holding that the failure to file written findings for a departure sentence is not reviewable under rule 3.800(a) and that sentencing upon probation revocation does not violate double jeopardy protections.
The failure to file written findings for a departure sentence is not cognizable as an illegal sentence under rule 3.800(a), and sentencing upon probation revocation does not violate double jeopardy.
[1] The failure to file written findings for a departure sentence does not render a sentence illegal for purposes of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.
[2] A defendant placed on probation pursuant to a plea agreement may be sentenced to a term in excess of the original plea bargain upon violation and revocation of probation…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 Kinsler received a sentence upon revocation of his probation and challenged it as illegally enhanced for lack of written findings and as vio…
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 Constitutional Safeguards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order of the trial court denying appellant’s Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence. Appellant’s claim that the trial court imposed an illegally enhanced sentence because it failed to file written findings for a departure sentence is not reviewable under rule 3.800(a). See Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1196 (Fla.1995) (rejecting argument that the failure to file written findings for a departure sentence renders a sentence an illegal sentence for purposes of a rule 3.800(a) motion).
We also find no merit in appellant’s claim that the sentence imposed upon revocation of his probation violated his constitutional safeguards against double jeopardy. See State v. Payne, 404 So. 2d 1055, 1057-58 (Fla.1981) (holding that a defendant placed on probation pursuant to the terms of a plea agreement may be sentenced to a term in excess of the provisions of the original plea bargain upon violation and revocation of said probation); and section 948.06(1), Fla.Stat. (2000) (“If such probation or community control is revoked, the court shall adjudge the probationer or offender guilty of the offense charged and proven or admitted, unless he or she has previously been adjudged guilty, and impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer or offender on probation or into community control”).
Accordingly, we affirm.
STONE, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- State v. Payne, 404 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1981)