ANITA M. HOLLYBROOK, 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.
Anita Hollybrook appeals the denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court reversed, finding that her downward departure sentence of seven years imprisoned exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for third-degree vehicular homicide, making the sentence illegal despite being part of a negotiated plea agreement.
A downward departure sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum is illegal regardless of whether it was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement. The statutory maximum limitations apply to all sentences, including those departing downward from guidelines, and a plea agreement cannot confer authority to exceed penalties established by law.
[1] A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for a crime constitutes an illegal sentence, even if imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement.
[2] A downward departure sentence must remain within the statutory maximum sentence limitations provided by law.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A defendant cannot by agreement confer on a judge authority to exceed the penalties established by law.”
Establishes that plea agreements cannot exempt judges from statutory sentencing limitations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHollybrook entered nolo contendere pleas to three counts of vehicular homicide, third-degree felonies. The sentencing guidelines recommended 28.1 to 4…
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 Third Degree Felony cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Anita M. Hollybrook appeals the summary denial of her motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse because although the sentence was a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines, it exceeded the statutory maximum for the crime and thus constituted an illegal sentence.
Hollybrook entered nolo contendere pleas to three counts of vehicular homicide, third-degree felonies under section 782.071(1)," Florida Statutes (1997). Despite a guidelines sentencing range of 28.1 to 46.8 years in prison, a plea agreement was reached calling for a downward departure sentence of seven years’ imprisonment for count one, followed by a total of ten years’ probation for the remaining two counts.
In her motion under rule 3.800(a), Holly-brook alleged that her downward departure sentence of seven years’ imprisonment improperly exceeded the statutory maximum for the crime. Section 775.082(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1997), imposes a maximum of five years’ imprisonment for a third-degree felony. The trial court concluded that because the sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, it was not illegal and Holly-brook was not entitled to relief. We cannot agree.
This court previously decided this issue in Nunez v. State, 721 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). In Nunez, the defendant was convicted of vehicular homicide and, despite a guidelines sentencing range of 111 months to 185 months in prison, the trial court imposed a downward departure sentence of ten years’ imprisonment, suspended after five years, followed by five years’ probation. Id. at 349. We reversed and concluded that since the trial court chose to impose a downward departure sentence, then pursuant to section 921.001(5), Florida Statutes (1995), the trial court was required to sentence the defendant within the statutory maximum of five years provided in section 775.082(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1995). Nunez, 721 So. 2d at 349-50.
The State’s argument, that Nunez does not apply because Hollybrook’s sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, is contrary to sections 921.001(5) and 921.0016(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1997). These statutes specify that any departure from the recommended guidelines sentence “must be within any relevant maximum sentence limitations provided in s. 775.082.” Id. As a result, and in accordance with Nunez, we conclude that the term of seven years’ imprisonment imposed on Hollybrook is illegal. Moreover, a plea agreement does not change the illegal nature of the sentence. As the supreme court has stated, “[A] defendant cannot by agreement confer on a judge authority to exceed the penalties established by law.” Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368, 1371 (Fla.1991).
Because we agree with Hollybrook that the prison sentence of seven years is illegal, we reverse. On remand, and with the State’s agreement, the trial court may re-sentence Hollybrook to a sentence within the statutory maximum of five years for count one. See Howell v. State, 764 So. 2d 780, 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If the State does not agree to such a sentence, Holly-brook must be allowed to withdraw her plea as to the three counts that were charged. Id. If the plea is withdrawn, Hollybrook wül face the original charges and penalties.
.Reversed and remanded with instructions.
GREEN, A.C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gonzales v. State, 816 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…defendant cannot be bound by an agreement to accept a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum. See Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501 (Fla.1986), receded from on other grounds Quarterman v. State, 527 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1988); Hollybrook v. State, 795 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Sohl v. State, 710 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Cheney v. State, 640 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Dyer v. State, 629 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Stephens v. State, 627 So. 2d 543, 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Even…
-
Carson v. State, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…8 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (same); Hebert v. State, 600 So. 2d 1293, 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (same); see also Walters v. State, 812 So. 2d 457, 458 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that a defendant may not plead to an illegal sentence); Hollybrook v. State, 795 So. 2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (same); Gifford v. State, 744 So. 2d 1046, 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (same); Brister v. State, 622 So. 2d 552, 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same). In this case, it is unclear from the record whether Appellant’s sentence is illega…
Authorities Cited
- Myren Wayne Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1991)
- Nunez v. State, 721 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Howell v. State, 764 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)