JOHNNY WILLIAM MURRAY, 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.
Court affirmed Murray's convictions for delivery and possession of cocaine but reversed and remanded sentences because the oral pronouncement was ambiguous and the written sentencing documents imposed an illegal probationary sentence exceeding statutory limits.
When oral sentencing pronouncements are ambiguous and written sentencing documents impose illegal sentences exceeding statutory maximums, sentences must be reversed and remanded for resentencing.
[1] A probationary sentence imposed in excess of the statutory maximum for a felony offense constitutes an illegal sentence requiring reversal and resentencing.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“probationary sentence in excess of statutory maximum is an illegal sentence”
Court cited Fonteyne v. State for the proposition that probationary sentences cannot exceed statutory maximums.
Murray was convicted of delivery of cocaine (second-degree felony) and possession of cocaine (third-degree felony). The trial court announced two diff…
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 Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Johnny William Murray appeals his judgments and sentences for delivery of cocaine and possession of cocaine. We affirm the judgments without further comment. However, because the written sentencing documents do not accurately reflect the oral pronouncement and it is unclear what sentences the circuit court judge intended to impose for each count, we reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing.
In its oral pronouncement, the trial court announced two different sentences for possession of cocaine and failed to announce any sentence for delivery of cocaine. Thus, the oral pronouncement of the sentences is both confusing and ambiguous. The written sentencing documents reflect a sentence of three years’ imprisonment as a habitual felony offender for delivery of cocaine, a second-degree felony,1 and fifteen years’ probation for possession of cocaine, a third-degree felony.2 The latter sentence, however, is an illegal sentence. See Fonteyne v. State, 855 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (holding that probationary sentence in excess of statutory maximum is an illegal sentence). We are unable to conclusively determine the trial court’s intent. We therefore reverse the sentences and remand for clarification of the sentences and the entry of written sentencing documents in accordance with that clarification. See Nobles v. State, 605 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
FULMER, C.J., and ALTENBERND and KELLY, JJ., Concur. . See § 893.13(l)(a)(l), Fla. Stat. (2005).
. See § 893.13(6)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Delemos v. State, 969 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
Authorities Cited
- Nobles v. State, 605 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Fonteyne v. State, 855 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)