EVANS DARLING, 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.
Appellant challenged his sentence for attempted first degree murder, claiming it was imposed under the wrong statute and exceeded the statutory maximum. The court affirmed the denial of the first claim but reversed and remanded the second claim, finding that the combined 30.5-year sentence (10.5 years incarceration plus 20 years probation) exceeded the 30-year statutory maximum.
The court held that Appellant's sentence was illegal because the combined periods of incarceration and probation cannot exceed the statutory maximum period of incarceration for the offense charged. The 30.5-year combined sentence exceeded the 30-year maximum, making it illegal despite the plea agreement.
[1] A criminal defendant cannot agree to the imposition of an illegal sentence.
[2] A sentence combining prison and probation is illegal if the total of the incarcerative and supervisory portions exceeds the statutory maximum.
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“The combined periods of incarceration and probation of a probationary split sentence cannot, at the time of the original sentence, exceed the maximum period of incarceration provided by statute for the offense charged.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that total sentence cannot exceed statutory maximum
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn March 3, 1997, Appellant was sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement to 10.5 years in prison followed by 20 years of probation for attempted first d…
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 Probationary Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s summary denial of his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) in which he alleges that he was sentenced under the wrong statute and that his sentence is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum. We affirm the summary denial of Appellant’s first claim without comment. Because Appellant’s second claim has merit, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On March 3, 1997, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant was sentenced to a guidelines sentence of 10.5 years in prison followed by 20 years of probation for attempted first degree murder pursuant to section 782.04, Florida Statutes (1995). Appellant alleges that the combination of his incarcerative and supervisory portions of his sentence exceed the 30-year statutory maximum for attempted first degree murder, therefore, his sentence is illegal.
Attempted first degree murder may be punished by a term of imprisonment not to exceed 30 years. §§ 775.082(3)(a)(3)(b), 777.04(4)(b), 782.04(l)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (1995). The combined periods of incarceration and probation of a probationary split sentence cannot, at the time of the original sentence, exceed the maximum period of incarceration provided by statute for the offense charged. See State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380, 383 (Fla.1978); Ward v. State, 558 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Here, when adding the 10.5 years of incarceration to the 20 years of probation, the 30.5-year sentence exceeds the 30-year statutory maximum for attempted first degree murder. Furthermore, Appellant cannot assent to an illegal sentence by entering into a negotiated plea agreement with the State. Taylor v. State, 778 So. 2d 464, 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Because Appellant’s sentence fails to comport with statutory limitations and the illegality is revealed by the record without any need for an evidentiary determination, State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla.1998), Appellant’s claim of an illegal sentence was improperly denied.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BOOTH, VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carson v. State, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…the illegality of a sentence). Additionally, the majority also disregards numerous cases from this Court and all of the other districts holding that a plea bargain cannot justify the imposition of an illegal sentence. See generally Darling v. State, 886 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (holding that a defendant cannot plead to an illegal sentence); Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521, 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (same); Wright v. State, 743 So. 2d 103, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (same); Taylor v. State, 899 So. 2d 119…
-
Costin v. State, 46 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…the legality of her sentences because they were entered pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. This argument is erroneous. Trial courts are not permitted to impose illegal sentences, even pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. Darling v. State, 886 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum even though the defendant had agreed to the sentence); Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521, 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing where the defendant’s sentence included a ty…
-
Jynio Philius v. State, 936 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ating section 893.13(6)(c), which does not contain a mandatory minimum. The fact that the appellant specifically agreed to this sentence in his plea agreement does not prevent him from raising this claim in a postconviction motion. Darling v. State, 886 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Because the appellant’s three-year mandatory minimum sentence is unauthorized by section 893.13(6)(c), Florida Statutes, the trial court erred in denying the appellant’s motion. We, therefore, reverse the trial court’s or…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 714 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 1998)
- State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1978)
- Ward v. State, 558 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Lang v. State, 778 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Marvel R. Taylor v. State, 778 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)