JONTAL RAMON LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 held that the Apprendi rule does not apply to sentencing departure orders, but reversed and remanded for reduction of sentence on one count due to improper firearm enhancement.
[1] A sentence for attempted second degree murder with a firearm, reclassified as a first-degree felony due to firearm use, must be reduced to the legal maximum.
[2] The Apprendi rule, requiring jury determination of facts increasing a penalty beyond the statutory maximum, does not apply to sentencing departure orders.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The State conceded that the sentence for attempted second-degree mu…
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 Firearm Enhancement cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Jontal Ramon Lee appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The State properly concedes that defendant-appellant Lee is entitled to relief with respect to his sentence on count five, attempted second degree murder with a firearm. Because the offense was reclassified on account of the use of a firearm, it is a felony of the first degree. See §§ 782.04(2), 777.04(4)(d), § 775.087, Fla. Stat. (1993).* On this count, the defendant was sentenced to thirty years imprisonment followed by thirty years probation. The State concedes that the order must be reversed and the cause remanded for reduction of sentence to the legal maximum solely as to this conviction. Because defendant has seventy-year concurrent sentences on three other counts, it will not be necessary for the defendant to be present for the reduction of sentence on count five.
Defendant also challenges the departure sentences he has received. He argues that under the United States Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the jury must decide the factual basis for the departure reasons. That is not so. The holding of Apprendi is, “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348.
Defendant’s seventy-year sentences on counts two, three, and seven are within the legal maximum. After reduction of sen tence on count five, that sentence will also be within the legal maximum. Although the trial court departed upward from the applicable sentencing guidelines, the sentence is nonetheless within the legal maximum.
In sum, the rule in Apprendi does not apply to a sentencing departure order. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for reduction of sentence on count five.
*
The crime dale was February 24, 1995.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. State, 949 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…kely, Florida courts held that the rule of Apprendi, does not apply when the sentence imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum permitted by section 775.082, Florida Statutes. See Isaac v. State, 826 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Lee v. State, 808 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); McCloud v. State, 803 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Caraballo v. State, 805 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Gilson v. State, 795 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Pursuant to sections 794.011(3) and 775.082, Florida Statutes, appe…
-
Lemuel E. Isaac v. State, 826 So. 2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…800(b)(l) is AFFIRMED. The rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), does not apply when the sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum permitted by section 775.082, Florida Statutes. See Lee v. State, 808 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); McCloud v. State, 803 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Caraballo v. State, 805 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Gilson v. State 795 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). BARFIELD, WEBSTER, and BENTON, JJ., concur.…
-
Frazier v. State, 824 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Lee v. State, 808 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000)