KIMBERLY VANDYKE, 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.
VanDyke appeals the denial of her motion to correct her sentence, arguing that the trial court violated section 775.082(10) by imposing a prison sentence without written findings that a non-prison sentence would endanger the public, despite scoring only 19.9 points on the sentencing guidelines scoresheet. The court affirms, holding that a violation of section 775.082(10)'s written findings requirement results in an improper but not illegal sentence, making the claim non-cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
The trial court's imposition of a prison sentence without written findings as required by section 775.082(10) does not result in an illegal sentence and is therefore not cognizable under rule 3.800(a). Such a violation results in an improper, but not illegal, sentence.
[1] A claim that a trial court failed to make written findings justifying a prison sentence under section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes, is not cognizable as an illegal sente…
[2] The requirement for written findings to impose a prison sentence under section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes, is analogous to the former sentencing guidelines' requiremen…
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“a trial court's imposition of a prison sentence without the written findings required by section 775.082(10) does not result in an illegal sentence”
This establishes the core holding that the absence of required written findings creates an improper, not illegal, sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVanDyke scored 19.9 points on her sentencing guidelines scoresheet for a third degree felony committed after July 1, 2009. The trial court imposed a s…
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 Written Findings Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Kimberly VanDyke appeals the trial court’s order denying her motion to correct her sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(a). We affirm.
In her motion, VanDyke asserted that her sentence was illegal because it failed to comport with section 775.082(10), Florida Statutes (2009).1 Specifically, *1078VanDyke relies on the fact that, although she scored only 19.9 points on her sentencing guidelines scoresheet, the trial court imposed a state prison sentence without setting forth a written finding that a non-prison sentence could present a danger to the public. This claim is not cognizable under rule 3.800(a) because it does not involve an illegal sentence.
As the First District recently recognized, section 775.082(10)’s requirement of providing written findings to impose a prison sentence is similar to the former sentencing guidelines’ requirement of providing written findings to impose an upward departure sentence. Jones v. State, 71 So.3d 173, 175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Regarding the latter, a trial court’s upward departure without written findings resulted in an improper, but not illegal, sentence. Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193, 1196 (Fla.1995), receded from on other grounds, Mack v. State, 823 So.2d 746, 748-49 (Fla.2002). Accord Wright v. State, 911 So.2d 81 (Fla.2005); Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89, 107-08 (Fla.2000); Wighard v. State, 34 So.3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); Godwin v. State, 679 So.2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). Likewise, a trial court’s imposition of a prison sentence without the written findings required by section 775.082(10) does not result in an illegal sentence. In so ruling, we recognize that the First District recently analyzed a section 775.082(10) violation claim under rule 3.800(a) on the merits in Hutto v. State, 50 So.3d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); however, that decision did not address whether such a claim was cognizable under rule 3.800(a).
AFFIRMED.
GRIFFIN, PALMER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Wright v. State, 911 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 2005)
- Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2002)
- Jones v. State, 71 So. 3d 173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Tess L. Godwin v. State, 679 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Hutto v. State, 50 So. 3d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Wighard v. State, 34 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Suarez v. State, 34 So. 3d 782 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)