MARTIN ALLEN COLOMBO, 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.
Martin Colombo challenged the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 post-conviction motion, claiming his combined sentences for child pornography possession and probation revocation exceeded statutory maximums. The court reversed on the illegal sentence claim, finding the trial court failed to provide adequate documentation to refute his assertion that he received inappropriate felony degree convictions.
A claim of illegal sentence may be raised at any time in a Rule 3.850 motion. A defendant's combined periods of incarceration from original sentencing and probation revocation cannot exceed the statutory maximum authorized for the offense. The trial court's failure to attach documentation conclusively refuting Colombo's claim or address his second claim in its order requires remand for the trial court to either attach conclusive documentation or grant the relief requested.
[1] A claim of an illegal sentence may be raised at any time, including collaterally, in a post-conviction motion.
[2] A defendant's combined periods of incarceration, imposed upon original sentencing and subsequently upon revocation of probation, may not exceed the statutory maximum auth…
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“A claim of illegal sentence may be raised at any time, including collaterally, in a rule 3.850 motion.”
Establishes that sentencing illegality can be challenged through post-conviction relief at any time
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceColombo was convicted of two counts of possessing child pornography and received sentences that, when combined with a subsequent probation revocation …
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 Statutory Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges the summary denial of his post conviction motion. Although the appellant’s first claim was properly denied, we reverse the appellant’s second claim that his sentence is illegal as a matter of law where his original sentence on two counts of possessing child pornography combined with his additional sentence imposed upon his revocation of probation exceeds the maximum sentence authorized.
A claim of illegal sentence may be raised at any time, including collaterally, in a rule 3.850 motion. See Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Further, a defendant’s combined periods of incarceration, imposed upon original sentencing and subsequently upon a revocation of probation, may not exceed the statutory maximum authorized for the offense. See Gonzalez v. State, 816 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA -2002).' The appellant’s facially sufficient claim of relief is based on his assertion that he was sentenced to two third-degree felonies, rather than two second-degree felonies. The degree of felony imposed for the offense of possessing child pornography varies dependent on the amount of pornography owned but includes the possible imposition of third or second-degree felonies. See 827.071(4)-(5), Fla. Stat. (1999). Because the trial court failed to attach the appellant’s written judgment and sentence or any other record attachments that would evidence the appellant’s original convictions and because the trial court failed to address the appellant’s second claim in its order denying the appellant’s motion, it is not apparent to which degree felonies the appellant was convicted. We, therefore, AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND for the trial court to either attach documentation conclusively refuting the appellant’s second claim, or to grant the appellant the relief requested.
AFFIRMED, IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
WEBSTER, BROWNING and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Gonzalez v. State, 816 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)