MARLON FLEMING, 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.
Marlon Fleming appealed the summary denial of his motion to correct illegal sentences, challenging three twenty-year sentences for aggravated assault that he claimed exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for third-degree felonies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial but remanded for the trial court to address two overlooked aggravated assault sentences that appeared to warrant the same relief the trial court had granted for a third similar charge.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary denial of the motion as to all issues addressed, but remanded because the trial court failed to address Fleming's identical challenge to two other aggravated assault sentences on which it had granted relief on a similar charge, requiring the trial court to address those two overlooked sentences on remand.
[1] A trial court must address all claims raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
[2] Sentences exceeding the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony are illegal.
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“Fleming challenged three lesser twenty-year sentences on aggravated assault charges, claiming that they were illegal in that they each exceeded the statutory maximum (of five years in prison) for a third-degree felony.”
Establishes the core legal issue—that the imposed sentences exceeded the statutory maximum penalty for the offense of conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFleming committed crimes charged in four separate cases in 2000. In 2001, he entered negotiated pleas resolving all four cases, resulting in concurren…
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 Reclassification Of Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
Marlon Fleming was granted a belated appeal to address the summary denial of his latest motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm as to all issues addressed in the order. But, as the State concedes, a remand is necessary so that the trial court can address an overlooked portion of Fleming’s motion.
Fleming committed a number of crimes that were charged in four separate cases in the year 2000.1 In 2001, Fleming entered negotiated pleas to resolve all four cases, resulting in a number of concurrent sentences, the longest of which are two sentences of 471.175 months in prison, with concurrent twenty-year firearm minimum mandatory terms.2 In his motion, Fleming challenged three lesser twenty-year sentences on aggravated assault charges, claiming that they were illegal in that they *1257each exceeded the statutory maximum (of five years in prison) for a third-degree felony.3 In the order on appeal, the trial court granted relief as to one of the charges, reducing the sentence to five years, but did not address the claim with respect to the other two charges. On appeal, the State concedes that the trial court should have addressed the other two counts, noting that “to the extent that Appellant raised the same challenge to the sentences on counts five and six in case number 2000-CF-006410, that the trial court granted relief on [sic] in case 2000-CF-007495, the trial court should have granted the same relief in case number 2000-CF-006410.” We agree with the State that the trial court should have fully addressed Fleming’s argument, and remand with directions that the trial court address the overlooked sentences on the two remaining aggravated assault charges.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
LAWSON, EVANDER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.