STANLEY LEE TURNER, 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.
Stanley Lee Turner appealed the summary denial of his motion challenging the legality of his twenty-year sentence as a habitual felony offender for organized fraud. The court held that Turner's sentence was illegal because it exceeded the statutory maximum for the third-degree felony with which he was actually charged, despite the information's erroneous heading listing it as a second-degree felony.
Turner's twenty-year sentence for organized fraud was illegal because the offense charged in the body of the information constituted a third-degree felony, not a second-degree felony as the heading stated. Under Florida law, the offense described in the body of an information is the one with which the defendant is charged, making the sentence exceed the statutory maximum for that offense.
[1] A criminal sentence exceeding the statutory maximum for the offense charged is illegal, even if the charging document's heading mischaracterizes the felony degree.
[2] The offense described in the body of a charging document, not its heading, determines the crime with which a defendant is charged.
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“the offense described in the body is the one with which the defendant is charged”
Establishes the rule that the body of an information, not its heading, determines the actual offense charged and controls sentencing considerations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTurner was convicted of organized fraud in case number 95-183 and sentenced to twenty years as a habitual felony offender. The information's body alle…
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 Organized Fraud cases and more on FLexlaw
Stanley Lee Turner appeals the order summarily denying his motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
In his motion, Mr. Turner argued that his twenty-year sentence as a habitual felony offender for organized fraud in case number 95-183 is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum for the third-degree felony with which he was charged. See § 775.084(4)(a)(3), Fla. Stat. (1993) (providing that the sentence for a habitual felony offender convicted of a third-degree felony is ten years). The postconviction court relied on Mr. Turner’s judgment and sentence, which listed organized fraud as a second-degree felony, to deny this claim. However, the information filed in case number 95-183 alleges in the body of count one that Mr. Turner violated section 817.034(4)(a)(3) by obtaining property from the victim valued at less than $20,000, which is a third-degree felony. While the heading of the information erroneously lists organized fraud as a second-degree felony, “the offense described in the body is the one with which the defendant is charged.” Troyer v. State, 610 So.2d 530, 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Accordingly, Mr. Turner’s twenty-year sentence for organized fraud is illegal.
Mr. Turner also complained in his motion that the Department of Corrections (DOC) improperly used his sentence in case number' 91-2804 to calculate his sentences and his release date in case numbers 95-41 and 95-183. The record before this court shows that Mr. Turner filed an administrative complaint with the DOC. His next remedy is not a rule 3.800(a) motion but a petition for writ of mandamus in Leon County Circuit Court or a petition for writ of habeas corpus ,in the circuit court where he is incarcerated. See Grace v. State, 920 So.2d 719, 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
*281Accordingly, we affirm the postconviction court’s order denying Mr. Turner’s rule 3.800(a) motion except for its finding that Mr. Turner’s sentence for organized fraud in case number 95-183 is not illegal; we reverse and remand for resentencing on that charge.
Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.
KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Troyer v. State, 610 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Gibson v. State, 920 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Grace v. State, 920 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)