GEORGE I. WRIGHT, 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.
George Wright appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), challenging his concurrent seventy-five-year sentences for armed robbery on the grounds that the trial court retained jurisdiction over more than one-third of the sentences and failed to provide reasons for the retention. The Second District affirmed the trial court's denial, receded from its prior King v. State decision, and certified conflict with other district courts regarding whether challenges to retention of jurisdiction reasons are cognizable under Rule 3.800(a).
A challenge to the sufficiency of reasons for a trial court's retention of jurisdiction over a sentence is not cognizable in a Rule 3.800(a) motion because failure to provide such reasons does not constitute an illegal sentence as defined by Florida Supreme Court precedent. The trial court's order denying Wright's second claim was therefore properly denied.
[1] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is not the proper vehicle to challenge a trial court's failure to provide written reasons for retaining jurisd…
[2] An illegal sentence is generally defined as a sentence that exceeds the maximum period set forth by law for a particular offense.
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 intelligence“an illegal sentence is one that exceeds the maximum period set forth by law for a particular offense without regard to the guidelines”
Establishes the foundational definition of illegal sentence from Davis v. State that limits Rule 3.800(a) challenges.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1979, Wright pleaded guilty to armed robbery in two separate cases and received concurrent sentences of seventy-five years in prison in each case. …
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 Reservation Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
George I. Wright appeals the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the trial court’s order of denial, recede from our opinion in King v. State, 835 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and certify conflict with the First, Third, and Fourth Districts.
In 1979, Wright pleaded guilty to armed robbery in two separate cases. In both cases, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent sentences of seventy-five years in prison but retained jurisdiction over one-third of both sentences. In his motion, Wright alleged that both sentences are illegal because the trial court could only retain jurisdiction over one-third of one sentence and because the trial court did not set forth its reasons for retaining jurisdiction. The trial court denied Wright’s second claim but granted relief on the first claim by relinquishing jurisdiction as to one of the sentences. We affirm the trial court’s granting of Wright’s first claim without discussion. We write to address Wright’s second claim.
In King, 835 So. 2d at 1225, this court held that a rule 3.800(a) motion is a proper vehicle to challenge the trial court’s reservation of jurisdiction over a sentence. However, we now recede from our holding in King because it is inconsistent with the Florida Supreme Court’s definition of an illegal sentence.
In Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193, 1196 (Fla.1995), receded from in part on other grounds, Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla.2002), the supreme court held that an illegal sentence is one that exceeds the maximum period set forth by law for a particular offense without regard to the guidelines.
Pursuant to this definition, the court held that failure to file written findings for a departure sentence does not constitute an illegal sentence and thus is not subject to challenge under rule 3.800(a).
Davis, 661 So. 2d at 1196-97. In State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429, 433 (Fla.1998), the supreme, court expanded the definition of illegal sentence to include a sentence that patently fails to comport with statutory or constitutional limitations. After Mancino issued, this court continued to hold that a challenge to departure reasons is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Williams v. State, 734 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
In Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 107-08 (Fla.2000), the Florida Supreme Court again addressed the issue and held that the failure to file written departure reasons is a fundamen tal error for purposes of direct appeal; however, the court did not recede from its holding in Davis that failure to file written reasons for a departure sentence does not constitute an illegal sentence.
We believe that a challenge to the sufficiency of the reasons for a trial court’s retention of jurisdiction over a sentence is analogous to a challenge to a trial court’s failure to provide departure reasons for a sentence. Based on the supreme court’s holdings in Davis and Maddox, we conclude that Wright’s challenge to the trial court’s failure to provide reasons for retaining jurisdiction is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence.
Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s order of denial, recede from our opinion in King, 835 So. 2d 1224, and certify conflict with the First District’s opinions in Kirtsey v. State, 855 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), Bingham v. State, 813 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), Thames v. State, 769 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), and Hampton v. State, 764 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); the Third District’s opinion in Macias v. State, 614 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); and the Fourth District’s opinion in Hernandez v. State, 825 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Affirmed; conflict certified.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and FULMER, WHATLEY, NORTHCUTT, CASANUEVA, SALCINES, STRINGER, COVINGTON, KELLY, CANADY, VILLANTI, WALLACE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Wright v. State, 911 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2005)…ANSTEAD, J. We have for review the decision in Wright v. State, 864 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), which certified conflict with the decisions in Kirtsey v. State, 855 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Hernandez v. State, 825 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Bingham v. State, 813 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Thames v. State,…
-
Little Willie Harper v. State, 874 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…021 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Hampton v. State, 764 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Macias v. State, 614 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we certify conflict with the opinions from the second district holding to the contrary. Wright v. State, 864 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2003); Garcia v. State, 867 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004). The case is reversed and remanded to the trial court to either relinquish the retention of jurisdiction over Harper’s sentence or to make specific individual findings in accor…
-
Baxter v. State, 892 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Wright v. State, 864 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (en banc). As this court did in Wright, we certify direct conflict with Kirtsey v. State, 855 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Hernandez v. State, 825 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Bingham v. State, 813 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2002)
- Hampton v. State, 764 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- MacIas v. State, 614 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Hernandez v. State, 825 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Jasper R. Kirtsey v. State, 855 So. 2d 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Vangunda v. State, 769 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Norris Gecorvis Williams v. State, 734 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)