RICHARD KITTLES, 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.
A trial court cannot impose a state prison sentence for a misdemeanor conviction unless it is served concurrently with a felony sentence.
[1] A trial court lacks the authority to impose a state prison sentence for a misdemeanor conviction unless the misdemeanor sentence is imposed concurrently with a felony sen…
[2] A sentence is illegal if it imposes a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circum…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of felonies and misdemeanors. He received state prison sentences for felonies and a one-year state prison sentence for misdeme…
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 Misdemeanor Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Richard Kittles, timely appeals the summary denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. He contends that his sentence for misdemeanor crimes is illegal, because the trial court ordered it served in prison, while it could be served only in county jail under the facts of this case. We' agree and reverse, as a trial court does not have the authority to impose a state prison sentence for a misdemeanor conviction unless the misdemeanor sentence is imposed concurrently with a felony sentence.
In lower tribunal case number 01-18121 CF in the Circuit Court of Broward County, appellant was convicted of two felonies and a misdemeanor, for which he was sentenced to concurrent sentences in state prison. In lower tribunal case number 01-4270 CF, appellant was convicted of three misdemeanors for which he was sentenced to a term of one year in the Department of Corrections on .two of the counts and 60 days in Broward County Jail on the other. The sentences were to run concurrently with each other, but consecutive to the sentences imposed in case number 01-18121 CF.
Appellant filed a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence, claiming that his sentence in case number 01-4270 CF was illegal because those crimes carried only jail time. The state filed a response to appellant’s motion, arguing that summary denial was appropriate. However, while the state’s response addressed the permissibility of consecutive sentences, the state’s response never directly addressed whether it was permissible for the trial court to impose a one-year prison sentence, rather than one year in county jail, for appellant’s misdemeanor convictions in case number 01-4270 CF. Relying on the state’s response, the trial court summarily denied appellant’s motion, prompting this appeal.
Because a motion to correct a sentencing error involves a pure issue of law, our standard of review is de novo. See Willard v. State, 22 So.3d 864, 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) provides that “[a] court may at any time correct an illegal sentence imposed by it ... when it is affirmatively alleged that the court records demonstrate on their face an entitlement to that relief....” An “illegal sentence” for purposes of rule 3.800(a) is one which imposes a “kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.” See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1181 (Fla.2001).
By definition, a “misdemeanor” is a criminal offense that is punishable by a term of imprisonment in a county correctional facility for a sentence “not in excess of 1 year.” § 775.08(2), Fla. Stat. (2001). While misdemeanors ordinarily are not punishable by imprisonment in a state prison, it is permissible for a court to impose a prison sentence for a misdemean- or if it is to be served in a state penitentiary concurrently with a felony prison sentence. See Anderson v. State, 617 So.2d 827, 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (holding that it was permissible for the trial court to impose one-year sentences for first-degree misdemeanors to be served in the custody of the Department of Corrections concurrently with a felony sentence); see also Daniels v. State, 491 So.2d 543, 545 (Fla.1986) (“We reject the state’s argument that Daniels’ trespassing sentence cannot be concurrent with his felony sentences.”)
*285However, where the misdemeanor sentence is not to be served concurrently with a felony prison sentence, a trial court does not have the authority to impose a state prison sentence for a misdemeanor conviction. See Flores v. State, 974 So.2d 556, 559 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (stating that misdemeanors are not punishable by imprisonment in a state prison and that “when a defendant is convicted of both a felony and a misdemeanor, the trial court may properly sentence a defendant to county jail time on the misdemeanor to be followed by a prison sentence”); see also Giarraputo v. State, 447 So.2d 1033, 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (“In this case, a trial judge sentenced the defendant to 364 days in ‘Florida State Prison;’ on appeal, the state concedes that a sentence for less than one year cannot be served in any state penitentiary”).
Here, the judgment of conviction and sentence reveals that the trial court sentenced appellant to a term of one year in the custody of the Department of Corrections for misdemeanor crimes in case number 01-4270 CF, to run consecutive to a prison sentence imposed for felony convictions in another case. Because the sentencing order on its face reflects that appellant’s misdemeanor sentences in case number 01-M270 CF were not imposed concurrently to any felony sentence at the time of their imposition, we conclude that it was impermissible to impose a sentence of imprisonment in a state prison for appellant’s misdemeanors in that case. Accordingly, we reverse the summary denial of appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion and remand with directions for the trial court to correct the sentencing order. The sentence can be corrected either by ordering it concurrent with the felony sentences in case number 01-18121 CF or by ordering the sentence in case number 01-4270 CF to be served in the county jail, rather than one year in state prison.
Remanded with directions.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Smith v. State, 143 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…youthful offender status. This appeal follows. “ ‘Because a motion to correct a sentencing error involves a pure issue of law, our standard of review is de novo.’ ” Salter v. State, 77 So. 3d 760, 764 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting Kittles v. State, 31 So. 3d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). Smith argues that the trial court erred by revoking his youthful offender status as to his original charges because once a defendant is designated a youthful offender, that status cannot be revoked. Relying on Rogers v. St…
-
Treymone Goldwire v. State, 73 So. 3d 844 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ered denied under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2)(B). Goldwire appealed the denial of his motion. “[A] motion to correct a sentencing error involves a pure issue of law,” so the proper standard of review is de novo. Kittles v. State, 31 So. 3d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Chapter 958 of the Florida Statutes governs youthful offenders. Specifically, section 958.14 discusses a youthful offender’s violation of probation. A violation or alleged violation of probation or the terms of a community…
-
Salter v. State, 77 So. 3d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…o not read a special instruction regarding circumstantial evidence was not an abuse of discretion. Sentencing Error “Because a motion to correct a sentencing error involves a pure issue of law, our standard of review is de novo.” Kittles v. State, 31 So. 3d 283, 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Salter argued that the trial court erred in its'denial of sentencing him as a youthful offender when Salter was nineteen years old at the time of the offense, twenty years old at the time of the sentencing, and had minimal…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Daniels v. State, 491 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 1986)
- Willard v. State, 22 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Doyle v. The Pillsbury Co., 447 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Flores v. State, 974 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Anderson v. State, 617 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)