WILLIE MUNNERLYN, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2001-09-05

Nos. 4D00-2376, 4D00-3136

STONE, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

795 So. 2d 171 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2001) Positive Treatment

Cited by 4 cases

Topics

Statutory Maximum Sentence Sentencing Discretion Probation Revocation

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order revoking appellant’s probation. However, we reverse and remand for resentencing because the record suggests that the trial court mistakenly believed it had no discretion but to sentence appellant to prison for the balance of the suspended portion of his original sentence once he violated his probation. See Bryant v. State, 591 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). On remand, the trial court shall exercise its sentencing discretion and consider all sentencing alternatives.

Additionally, we remand for correction of the written sentence of fifteen years imprisonment on Count II of Case Number 98-20134CR (possession of cocaine) to conform to the oral pronouncement of five years imprisonment, which is the statutory maximum for that count.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part and REMANDED.

STONE, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)

…use defendants generally must be sentenced by a court that is able to exercise its discretion and consider all of its options before imposing a sentence, see Soanes v. State , 31 So. 3d 914, 914-15 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ; see also Munnerlyn v. State , 795 So. 2d 171, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this error warrants remand and resentencing. CONCLUSION We answer the certified question in the affirmative, quash the decision below, and disapprove Christian and the decisions cited in footnote 3 to the extent that they…
Treymone Goldwire v. State, 73 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)

…uggests that the trial court mistakenly believed it had no discretion ... to sentence appellant,” the case should be remanded for “the trial court [to] exercise its sentencing discretion and consider all sentencing alternatives.” Munnerlyn v. State, 795 So. 2d 171, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, the State’s position was that the trial court was misled by Gold-wire’s counsel to believe that it no longer had discretion to re-sentence him as a youthful offender, thus invoking the “invited-error doctrine.” Dur…

Authorities Cited

Bryant v. State, 591 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw