JAMES HORACE COOPER, 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 Cooper challenged his 20-year prison sentence for DUI manslaughter, a second-degree felony with a statutory maximum of 15 years. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that each individual charge must result in a legal sentence regardless of whether the overall aggregate sentence is lawful.
The court held that Cooper's 20-year sentence for DUI manslaughter is illegal because it exceeds the 15-year statutory maximum for second-degree felonies. The court rejected the argument that an illegal sentence on one charge is cured by the fact that the overall aggregate sentence is lawful, holding that each individual charge must result in a legal sentence.
[1] The Criminal Punishment Code (CPC) requires imposition of the lowest permissible sentence (LPS) when the LPS exceeds the statutory maximum sentence for an individual offe…
[2] The LPS under the CPC is an individual minimum sentence that applies to each felony at sentencing for which the LPS exceeds that felony's statutory maximum sentence, rega…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 trial court remained free to sentence up to the statutory maximum on each offense”
Establishes the principle that sentencing on each offense is independently limited by the statutory maximum for that specific offense.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 18, 2005, Cooper was sentenced to 15 years' probation for multiple counts including DUI manslaughter. On January 4, 2006, he violated proba…
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 Guidelines Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMAS, J.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Because Appellant’s sentence for DUI manslaughter exceeds the statutory maximum for a second-degree felony, we reverse.
On October 18, 2005, Appellant was sentenced to 15 years’ probation for multiple counts, including one count of DUI manslaughter, a second-degree felony. On January 4, 2006, Appellant violated the conditions of his probation by driving without a valid driver’s license and failing to report his change of address. The trial court sentenced him to 20 years in prison for the DUI manslaughter charge, and 5 years concurrent for the two related charges.
Appellant filed a motion to correct his illegal sentence, alleging that the trial court erred-in sentencing him to 20 years in prison on the DUI manslaughter charge because the maximum punishment for a second-degree felony is 15 years. §§ 316.193(3)(c)(3)(a); 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005).
The trial court, relying on Floyd v. State, found that Appellant’s overall sentence of 20 years was appropriate because it was within the range computed on the guidelines scoresheet. 707 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA), aff'd, 721 So. 2d 1163 (Fla.1998).. This ruling is in error. Appellant’s scoresheet shows a “lowest permissible prison sentence” of 140 months (11 years, 8 months) for DUI manslaughter. Because Appellant’s “sentence floor” is not higher than the 15-year statutory maximum sentence for DUI manslaughter, the maximum permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code for this offense is 15 years. See Moore v. State, 859 So. 2d 613, 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“The trial court remained free to sentence up to the statutory maximum on each offense”) (emphasis added); § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2005).
Although the State acknowledges that Appellant’s sentence for DUI manslaughter is illegal, it notes that Appellant’s total sentence of 20 years for all offenses is not.1 The State argues that because Appellant could be legally sentenced to an overall 20-year sentence by merely reducing the sentence for manslaughter to the allowable 15 years and adding a consecutive 5-year sentence for either of the other offenses,2 there is no sentencing error. This argument was specifically rejected by the Fifth District in Wheeler v. State, 864 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
There, the court concluded, “[T]he fact that the court could have imposed consecutive sentences does not cure the illegality of the sentences actually imposed. Similarly, the fact that the court may order consecutive sentences on remand does not cure the illegality of the sentences.” Id. at 492-93 (citing Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114, n. 4 (Fla.2000) (holding that illegal sentence should not remain uncorrected merely because it was to be served concurrent to another sentence)).
We find the Fifth District’s analysis persuasive. The sentence for each charge must be a legal sentence.
Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to correct sentencing error. On remand, the trial court shall recalculate Appellant’s sentence in a manner consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions consistent with this opinion.
BENTON and PADOVANO, JJ., concur. . Appellant’s statutory maximum sentence for all offenses is 35 years (the sum of 15 years for second-degree DUI manslaughter, 15 years for second-degree charge of fleeing or attempting to elude, and 5 years for third-degree charge of driving without a valid driver's license).
. The Criminal Punishment Code allows the sentences to be imposed either concurrently or consecutively. § 921.0024(2), Fla. Stat. (2005).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dennard v. State, 157 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…of great public importance. I think the majority wrongly applies the “no manifest injustice” exception in State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287, 291-92 (Fla.2003), to this case, where all the sentences are illegal. It also conflicts with Cooper v. State, 960 So. 2d 849, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding the fact that a court could have imposed consecutive sentences to impose the same overall sentence does not cure an illegal sentence, which requires resentenc-ing). Therefore I would certify the following question:…1 / 2
-
Benny Arzola Martinez v. State, 216 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…the same length, then a manifest injustice has occurred in the illegal sentence. The mere possibility that the trial court could have imposed a legal sentence does not cure the error in failing to correct an illegal one. See, e.g., Cooper v. State, 960 So. 2d 849, 851 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). This is consistent with the rule 3.800(a) require [*742] ment that a motion to correct an illegal sentence may be brought at any time. It is also consistent with the First District’s pronouncement that “[a] manifest injusti…
-
Doyle E. MacKs, Jr. v. State, 46 So. 3d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ourt notes that the appellant's scoresheet indicated a maximum possible sentence of 395 years’ imprisonment plus 2 years in county jail. However, that fact is irrelevant to whether the appellant’s individual sentences are legal. See Cooper v. State, 960 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that a 20-year sentence for a second-degree felony' was illegal and rejecting the idea that, because defendant could be legally sentenced to a total of 20 years by reducing one sentence but imposing others consecutively,…
Authorities Cited
- Leonard v. State, 760 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2000)
- Floyd v. State, 707 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Wheeler v. State, 864 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- Geanetta Moore v. State, 859 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Floyd v. State, 721 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1998)