DOYLE E. MACKS, JR., 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.
Macks appealed a denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence imposed in 2003 following nolo contendere pleas. The appellate court affirmed the denial of one ground but reversed and remanded the denial of a second ground, finding that Macks' sentences for multiple counts of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling (a second-degree felony with a 15-year statutory maximum) were illegal because they exceeded the statutory maximum when the incarcerative and probationary periods were combined.
The court held that Macks' sentences were illegal because the combined incarcerative and probationary portions exceeded the statutory maximum of 15 years for the offense, and that a defendant cannot by plea agreement authorize a judge to impose sentences exceeding the statutory maximum established by law. The denial of ground two was therefore reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
[1] A sentence that includes both imprisonment and probation may not exceed the statutory maximum for the offense.
[2] A defendant cannot agree to a sentence that exceeds the statutory maximum penalty established by law.
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“a sentence, which includes the incarcerative portion of the sentence and the probationary or community control period, may not exceed the statutory maximum for the offense”
Establishes the legal standard that the entire sentence, including probation, cannot exceed statutory maximums
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn November 21, 2003, Macks entered pleas of nolo contendere to multiple crimes across several cases and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment follo…
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 Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
On November 21, 2003, following pleas of nolo contendere, the appellant was convicted of a number of crimes in multiple cases and sentenced to a total of 15 years’ imprisonment to be followed by 40 years on probation. On February 16, 2010, the appellant filed a motion to correct illegal sentence asserting two claims. We affirm the denial of ground one without further discussion. However, for the reasons discussed below, we reverse and remand the denial of ground two.
In ground two, the appellant asserts that for some charges he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment exceeding the statutory máximums. The judgment and sentence indicates that the appellant was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment to be followed by 120 months on probation for multiple counts of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling, a second-degree felony punishable by a maximum of 15 years’ imprisonment.1 See §§ 775.082(3)(c); 810.02(3)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003). Thus, it appears the appellant’s sentences are illegal. See Stephens v. State, 677 So.2d 1325, 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (stating that a “sentence, which includes the incarcerative portion of the sentence and the probationary or community control period, may not exceed the statutory maximum for the offense”). Although it appears the sentences were imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, a defendant cannot plead to a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum. See Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1991) (“[A] defendant cannot by agreement confer on a judge authority to exceed the penalties established by law”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the denial of ground two for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part.
WOLF, DAVIS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Myren Wayne Larson v. State, 572 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1991)
- Stephens v. State, 677 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Routenberg v. State, 677 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Cooper v. State, 960 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)