JOHN MARSHALL, 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.
John Marshall appealed from an order denying his Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence for burglary, grand theft, and fraudulent use of a credit card. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, finding that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence by running a prison sentence concurrently with probation and by exceeding the statutory maximum for the credit card offense.
The court held that the sentences were illegal because: (1) the ten-year sentence on the non-habitualized credit card count (a third-degree felony) exceeded the five-year statutory maximum; and (2) running both the theft and credit card sentences consecutively to the burglary sentence effectively imposed a prison sentence concurrently with probation, which is prohibited.
[1] A probationary term cannot be imposed concurrently with a sentence of incarceration.
[2] A sentence for a third-degree felony is limited to five years imprisonment.
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“It is well settled that probation cannot be imposed concurrently with a sentence of incarceration.”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle violated by the trial court's sentencing arrangement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarshall pleaded guilty to burglary of a conveyance, grand theft, and fraudulent use of a credit card. He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender …
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
John Marshall appeals from a final order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed under Florida Rule of Crim inal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for resentencing.
Marshall pleaded guilty to burglary of a conveyance, grand theft, and fraudulent use of a credit card. He was sentenced as a habitual felony offender (HFO) on the burglary and grand theft charges and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on each, with the sentence for the grand theft to be served consecutively to the sentence for the burglary. Although not habitualized on the credit card offense, he was sentenced to a term of ten years in prison suspended in favor of ten years of probation. This sentence was set to run consecutively to the sentence for the burglary.
Marshall’s rule 3.800(a) motion alleged that the “HFO sentences” for the theft and credit card counts could not be imposed consecutively to each other because they arose out of the same criminal episode. The postconviction court denied the motion, noting (1) that the rule against consecutive HFO sentences for offenses occurring during the same criminal episode does not apply because the sentence for the credit card count is not an HFO sentence and (2) that the sentence for the credit card count was not run consecutively to the sentence on the theft count but rather consecutively to the sentence on the burglary count. In his initial brief to this court, Marshall raised two related issues: (1) that if the sentence for the credit card count is running consecutively to the burglary count, it must be running concurrently with the theft count — an illegal situation because a probationary term cannot run concurrently with a prison term — and (2) that the nonhabitual ten-year sentence for the credit card count, a third-degree felony, is illegal.
In its response to the issues raised in both Marshall’s motion and his brief, the State concedes the need for re-sentencing. We agree. The information alleged that Marshall obtained goods and services in an amount consistent with a charge for a third-degree felony. See §§ 817.61, 817.67(2), Fla. Stat. (1989). As such, the sentence on that nonhabitualized count is limited to five years. See § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1989). Additionally, by running the sentences for both the theft and credit card counts consecutively to the sentence for the burglary count, the trial court essentially ran a prison sentence (for the theft) concurrently with probation (for the credit card offense). Such a combination constitutes an illegal sentence. See Joseph v. State, 752 So. 2d 656, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“It is well settled that probation cannot be imposed concurrently with a sentence of incarceration.”). We therefore remand for the court to resentence Marshall for the fraudulent use of a credit card count.
Reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
CASANUEVA and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.