ERNSO SIMON, 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.
The court held that the motion to correct an illegal sentence was properly denied because the sentence itself was legal, even if the offense classification might be incorrect.
Ernso Simon was sentenced to a five-year prison term for felony habitual driving with a suspended license. He filed a motion to correct an illegal sen…
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 Classification cases and more on FLexlaw
Ernso Simon appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He is serving a five-year prison term for felony habitual driving with a license that was suspended, revoked, or cancelled. See § 322.34, Fla. Stat. (2008). The trial court correctly ruled that this sentence is legal, but Mr. Simon may be correct that his offense should have been classified as a misdemeanor.
Mr. Simon’s primary argument is that his offense should be categorized as a first-degree misdemeanor and not a third-degree felony in light of section 322.34(10)(a). See Wyrick v. State, 50 So.3d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). This portion of section 322.34 was added shortly before Mr. Simon’s relevant offense, and it is entirely possible that his attorney was not aware of this change in the law. We cannot tell from our record whether this subsection applies to Mr. Simon. He claims that he has no prior forcible felony, which may be true if there are only thirteen points on his scoresheet.
This claim, however, does not involve an illegal sentence and cannot be resolved without an evidentiary hearing. In order to raise this issue, Mr. Simon needs to file a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 alleging that his lawyer was ineffective in allowing him to plead to this felony and to be sentenced to this five-year term of imprisonment when the offense was really a first-degree misdemeanor. The relevant sentence was imposed on September 3, 2009, and the trial court should accept as timely any proper motion that is filed by October 3, 2011.
Affirmed.
DAVIS and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tradler v. Tradler, 100 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…ntional dissipation or destruction of the asset.” Id. Without evidence [*741] and a specific finding of misconduct, the trial court abuses its discretion in including a dissipated asset in the equitable distribution scheme. See Tummings v. Francois, 82 So. 3d 955, 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The trial court found that the Husband “dissipated marital funds” by cashing in $93,000 in CDs from marital Wachovia accounts. The court awarded one-half of those funds to the Wife. The trial court also found that the parti…
-
Bateh v. Bateh, 98 So. 3d 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…al assets for the party’s own benefit, the courts, including the court in Roth, have also held that it is proper to spend such funds for living expenses and attorney’s fees while divorce proceedings are pending. See, e.g., id.; Tummings v. Francois, 82 So. 3d 955, 958-59 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Steedman v. Chenoweth, 27 So. 3d 78, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Furthermore, such expenditures are proper to maintain the parties’ customary standard of living. See, e.g., Annas v. Annas, 29 So. 3d 1209, 1210 (Fla. 1st DCA 2…
-
Kranci v. Kranci (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- S.V. v. State, 50 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Brittney M. Wyrick v. State, 50 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)