WILLIAM R. SINER, 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.
Siner appeals the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence imposed after his nolo contendere plea to sexual offenses. The court affirmed the denial, holding that because Siner entered a plea agreement for a specific term of years rather than for a sentence within a guidelines range, challenges to the guidelines scoring do not render the sentence illegal.
The sentence is not illegal. Because Siner entered a plea agreement for a specific term of years rather than for a sentence within a guidelines range, and the sentences imposed did not exceed statutory maximums and matched the agreed-upon terms, the trial court properly rejected all challenges to the guidelines scoring and application.
[1] A sentence is not illegal when a defendant enters into a plea agreement for a specific term of years, even if the sentence falls outside the sentencing guidelines, as lon…
[2] A motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800(a) is properly denied when the defendant's sentence was the result of a plea agreement for a specific term of yea…
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 intelligence“Contrary to his arguments, Siner entered into a plea agreement for a specific term of years, that is, the agreement was not conditioned upon a sentence within a specific guidelines range.”
Establishes the critical distinction between plea agreements tied to guidelines ranges versus those specifying fixed terms, which determines whether guidelines scoring affects sentence legality.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 24, 2002, Siner pleaded nolo contendere to lewd and lascivious exhibition, encouraging or enticing a child to engage in sexual acts, and at…
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 Florida Criminal Punishment Code cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWSON, J.
William R. Siner appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
On October 24, 2002, Siner entered a nolo contendere plea on counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition, and encouraging or enticing a child less than sixteen years of age to engage in prostitution or other sexual acts in case number 2001-CF-821, and a count of attempted sexual battery in case number 2001-CF-847. Siner was sentenced to a total of thirty-five years incarceration to be followed by ten years of sex offender probation. There was no direct appeal.
On May 18, 2005, Siner filed the instant motion to correct illegal sentence. In his motion he argued that his sentence was illegal because the primary offense alleged in the information was committed on August 1, 1998, prior to the enactment of Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code, and the additional offenses listed on the score-sheet are alleged to have occurred on August 26, 2001. Siner asserted that the trial court was required to use both the 1997 and 1998 versions of the guidelines, and, as such, his scoresheet was not properly scored. Siner further argued that his sentence is illegal because he should have been sentenced pursuant to the guidelines in effect at the time the alleged offense was committed. Finally, Siner argued that he should have been sentenced under the more lenient version of the guidelines because sentencing guidelines are subject to the rule of lenity and that it was error for the trial court to score eighty (80) victim injury points for non-contact crimes.
Contrary to his arguments, Siner entered into a plea agreement for a specific term of years, that is, the agreement was not conditioned upon a sentence within a specific guidelines range. Siner does not argue that the sentences he agreed to exceeded the statutory máximums for his offenses or that the trial-judge did not impose the agreed upon sentences. Therefore, the trial court properly concluded that Siner’s sentences were not illegal. See Wright v. State, 911 So. 2d 81 (Fla.2005); White v. State, 816 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
AFFIRMED.
PLEUS, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Wright v. State, 911 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2005)
- White v. State, 816 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)