RICHARD BOZZUTO, 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.
Richard Bozzuto challenged his 35-year sentence for attempted sexual battery on a child, arguing it exceeded the 30-year statutory maximum under Florida law. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, reversed the trial court's denial of his Rule 3.800(a) postconviction motion and remanded for resentencing, holding that the trial court improperly imposed a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum.
The trial court erred in imposing a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum. The statutory maximum can only be exceeded under Rule 3.704(d)(5) when the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code exceeds the statutory maximum. Since Bozzuto's lowest permissible sentence was 8.15 years—well below the 30-year statutory maximum—the 35-year sentence was illegal.
[1] A sentence exceeding the statutory maximum penalty for a crime is illegal, even if the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet would permit a longer sentence, unless the lowe…
[2] A trial court errs by imposing a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum penalty when the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code does not exce…
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“the statutory maximum could be exceeded when the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet provided for a greater sentence. However, this is only the case when the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code exceeds the statutory maximum.”
Establishes the legal standard for when a sentence can exceed statutory maximums
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBozzuto pled guilty to attempted sexual battery on a child under age twelve and corruption by threat. At sentencing, he received a 20-year sentence pl…
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 Attempted Sexual Battery On A Child cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Richard Bozzuto, challenges the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand.
Bozzuto pled guilty to attempted sexual battery on a child under the age of twelve in violation of section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes. At sentencing, Bozzuto appeared for two separate cases: attempted sexual battery and corruption by threat. Bozzuto was sentenced to twenty years’ incarceration followed by fifteen years’ sex offender probation, for a total sentence of thirty-five years for the attempted sexual battery. He received a concurrent five-year sentence for his corruption by threat conviction. Bozzuto subsequently filed the instant rule 3.800(a) motion, asserting that his sentence for attempted sexual battery *258was illegal because it exceeded the maximum penalty under section 777.04(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2006), of thirty years. According to Bozzuto, his thirty-five year sentence could only have been legal if he was given the maximum sentence for attempted sexual battery, thirty years, plus five years on the corruption by threat charge, with the sentences to run consecutively.
The trial court denied the motion, ruling that, under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704, the statutory maximum could be exceeded when the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet provided for a greater sentence. However, this is only the case when the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code exceeds the statutory maximum. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.704(d)(5); Leduc v. State, 803 So.2d 898, 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Cillo v. State, 913 So.2d 1233, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
In this case, the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code scoresheet was 97.8 months’ (or 8.15 years) incarceration. The maximum sentence that could be imposed was thirty years. Because the lowest permissible sentence under the Criminal Punishment Code did not exceed the statutory maximum, the trial court erred by imposing a sentence that exceeded the maximum provided by section 777.04(4)(b). Id. We therefore reverse the order denying relief and remand for resentencing, or to allow the State to withdraw from the plea agreement. See Thomas v. State, 932 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cillo v. State, 913 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Talmage E. Thomas v. State, 932 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Leduc v. State, 803 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)