ANGEL GUZMAN, 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 defendant's sentence was not illegal because his probation violation, which included committing murder, was substantive and not subject to the six-year cap for technical violations.
The defendant sought to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his twenty-year sentence for violating youthful offender probation exceeded the statutory…
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 Substantive Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. He claims that his twenty-year sentence for his violation of his youthful offender probation is illegal because the sentence exceeds the six-year cap for a “technical or nonsubstantive violation” as stated in section 958.14, Florida Statutes (2003).
We have reviewed our records for the defendant’s direct appeal in case number 4D07-4303. Guzman v. State, 994 So.2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (reversing the summary denial of a motion to withdraw plea after sentencing). The defendant admitted the violations of probation which included, among other things, his *1210commission of a murder in an unrelated case. Thus, the violation clearly was “substantive.” Moreover, in his plea agreement admitting to the violations, he acknowledged that he was facing up to sixty years in prison for the two counts in this case. In sum, the defendant’s claim in this rule 3.800 motion and appeal is frivolous.
We caution the defendant that further filing of frivolous or false claims may result in sanctions and referral to prison officials for disciplinary proceedings. Oquendo v. State, 2 So.3d 1001, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Leyva v. State, 127 So.3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Johnson v. State, 44 So.3d 198, 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
Affirmed.
CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Oquendo v. State, 2 So. 3d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Johnson v. State, 44 So. 3d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Guzman v. State, 994 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Fidel Leyva v. State, 127 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)