GREGORY HAYNES, 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.
Gregory Haynes appealed the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief challenging the legality of drug offender probation imposed on his sentences. The court affirmed the striking of drug offender probation from most offenses but reversed as to one count where the trial court improperly added probation to an otherwise legal prison sentence.
Drug offender probation is limited to chronic drug abusers violating specific statutory provisions and was properly struck from sentences for sale of cocaine and possession with intent to sell. However, the postconviction court erred by modifying the legal five-year prison sentence for simple possession of cocaine by adding drug offender probation, as a motion to correct illegal sentences does not authorize modification of a legal sentence on another count.
[1] A postconviction court may not amend a legal sentence by adding a probationary term after the sentence has been imposed.
[2] Drug offender probation is a sanction limited to chronic drug abusers who violate specific statutory provisions.
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“drug offender probation is a sanction limited to chronic drug abusers who violate sections 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), Florida Statutes (2001); and section 948.01(13), Florida Statutes (2001), does not authorize drug offender probation for the foregoing offenses.”
Establishes the limited scope of drug offender probation eligibility and the inapplicability to the offenses of sale and possession with intent to sell.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHaynes was convicted of multiple drug offenses in three cases: sale of cocaine, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell within 1000 f…
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 Qualifying Offense cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Chief Judge.
Gregory Haynes appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
We affirm the postconviction court’s order in all respects, save one. The postconviction court erred when it amended Mr. Haynes’ sentence on one count to add a term of drug offender probation, thereby unlawfully increasing his sentence. In his motion to correct illegal sentences in three cases, Mr. Haynes contended that the trial court’s imposition of drug offender probation for the offenses of sale of cocaine (case 02-13110), possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a place of worship (case 02-13111), and possession of cocaine with the intent to sell (case 02-06656) rendered those sentences illegal. Mr. Haynes correctly argued that drug offender probation is a sanction limited to chronic drug abusers who violate sections 893.13(2)(a) or (6)(a), Florida Statutes (2001); and section 948.01(13), Florida Statutes (2001), does not authorize drug offender probation for the foregoing offenses. See State v. Roper, 915 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
Therefore, the postconviction court correctly struck drug offender probation from Mr. Haynes’ sentences for sale of cocaine, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a place of worship, and possession of cocaine with intent to sell.
However, in count two of case 02-13110, Mr. Haynes was charged with and convicted of possession of cocaine, which is a qualifying offense for drug offender probation. Recognizing that fact, the postcon-viction court amended Mr. Haynes’ five-year prison sentence for possession of cocaine — a legal sentence — by adding a term of drug offender probation to be served after his release from incarceration. In so doing, the postconviction court improperly modified Mr. Haynes’ legal five-year prison sentence by tacking on a seven-year probationary term. See Pitts v. State, 935 So. 2d 634, 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“A motion to correct an illegal sentence does not authorize the trial court to modify a legal sentence imposed on another count.”); Lane v. State, 627 So. 2d 556, 557 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the postconviction court to strike drug offender probation from the sentence on count two in case 02-13110; otherwise, we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
KELLY and CANADY, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Roper, 915 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Brown v. State, 935 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Pitts v. State, 935 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Lane v. State, 627 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)