SAMUEL MAYBIN, 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.
Samuel Maybin appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court reverses, holding that even though the trial court lacked authority to reduce Maybin's sentence to time served in 1996, the State's failure to timely appeal that order meant Maybin had already served his modified sentence, making the subsequent resentencing to the original 25-year sentence a violation of double jeopardy.
The court held that once a sentence has been fully served, the trial court loses jurisdiction and cannot reassert it to impose an increased sentence, even if the original reduced sentence was invalid, because doing so violates the Double Jeopardy Clause. Additionally, the court held that Maybin's motion was not properly dismissed as successive because the trial court never addressed the merits of the double jeopardy claim.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a motion to correct an illegal sentence as successive if it has not previously addressed the merits of the claim raised in the motion.
[2] Once a defendant has served a sentence to completion, even if the sentence was illegal or invalid, the trial court loses jurisdiction and violates the Double Jeopardy Cla…
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“Once a sentence has already been served, even if it is an illegal sentence or an invalid sentence, the trial court loses jurisdiction and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by reasserting jurisdiction and resentencing the defendant to an increased sentence.”
Establishes the core holding that reasserting jurisdiction after a sentence is fully served violates double jeopardy protections
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaybin was convicted in 1991 of sale or delivery of cocaine and possession of a controlled substance, and was sentenced to 25 years and 5 years respec…
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 Jurisdiction To Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Samuel Maybin appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
We reverse and remand for the trial court to reinstate Maybin’s sentence of time served and for the trial court to order Maybin’s discharge from custody. In 1991, Maybin was convicted of sale or delivery of cocaine and possession of a controlled substance.
The trial court sentenced him as a habitual felony offender to twenty-five years in prison on the sale count and to five years in prison on the possession count. In 1996, Maybin filed a motion to mitigate sentence pursuant to what is now Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(c), alleging a serious health issue.
The trial court granted the motion and sentenced him to time served. The State did not seek review of this order. Maybin was released from the custody of the Department of Corrections.
In 1997, the State filed a motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(a), arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify Maybin’s sentence in 1996. The trial court granted this motion and resentenced Maybin to the original sentence of twenty-five years in prison on the sale of cocaine count. May-bin was recommitted to the custody of the Department of Corrections.
In his motion, Maybin argued that the trial court violated double jeopardy when it resenteneed him to twenty-five years in prison in 1997. The trial court denied the motion as successive, concluding that Maybin raised this claim unsuccessfully several times before. However, Maybin’s motion is not barred as successive because the trial court never addressed the merits of this particular claim. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying it as successive.
In 1996, the trial court lacked authority to mitigate Maybin’s sentence because the motion to mitigate was untimely. See Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
However, the State failed to seek review of this order by filing a petition for writ of certiorari in this court. See State v. Williams, 780 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000).
After the trial court mitigated his sentence, Maybin was released from prison. By the time the State filed the rule 3.800(a) motion and the trial court realized its mistake in modifying Maybin’s sentence, Maybin’s modified sentence of time served had already been served. Once a sentence has already been served, even if it is an illegal sentence or an invalid sentence, the trial court loses jurisdiction and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by reasserting jurisdiction and resentencing the defendant to an increased sentence. Sneed v. State, 749 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
Even though Maybin’s modified sentence was invalid, he had already served it to completion, and the trial court could not set it aside because the question had become moot. See id. at 546. Therefore, the trial court’s reimposition of the twenty-five year sentence four months later violated Maybin’s right to protection against double jeopardy. See id. A sentence that violates double jeopardy may be corrected via a rule 3.800(a) motion when the error is apparent from the face of the record. See Hopping v. State, 708 So. 2d 263 (Fla.1998). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to reinstate the sentence of time served and to order the discharge of Maybin from the Department of Corrections’ custody.
Reversed and remanded.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and WALLACE, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…r is not absolute and does not apply when the previous motion was denied not on the merits but as untimely. See Love v. State, 814 So. 2d 475, 478 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see generally Frew v. State, 947 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Maybin v. State, 884 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). In the present case, the postconviction court did not rule on the merits of the first rule 3.850 motion. Therefore, the dismissal of the second rule 3.850 motion was erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the summary denial of Waiter…
-
Clark v. State, 72 So. 3d 222 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…been seived, even if it is an illegal sentence or an invalid sentence, the trial court loses jurisdiction and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by reasserting jurisdiction and resentencing the defendant to an increased sentence.” Maybin v. State, 884 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (emphasis added) (citing Sneed v. State, 749 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)).…
-
State v. Jimenez, 173 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ed, even if it is an illegal sentence or an invalid sentence, the trial court loses jurisdiction and violates the Double Jeopardy Clause by reasserting jurisdiction and resentencing the defendant to an increased sentence.’ ” (citing Maybin v. State, 884 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (emphasis added))). Here, there is no dispute that the original 2003 sentence was illegal, and that Jimenez had been sentenced to sixty years as to Counts 1 to 4. That illegal sentence of sixty years had not been fully serv…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Darin S. Hopping v. State, 708 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Sneed v. State, 749 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Neilsen Arelen Wilhelm v. State, 543 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- State v. Williams, 780 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)