JAMES GRAHAM, 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.
James Graham appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence following his first-degree murder conviction and life imprisonment. The Fourth District affirmed, rejecting his claims that his mandatory life sentence was illegal and that the restitution order violated due process.
The court held that Graham's mandatory life sentence is legal under Florida law for capital offenses where the death penalty is not imposed, and that restitution procedures do not render a sentence illegal under rule 3.800(a) because restitution does not constitute the kind of punishment that no judge could impose under any sentencing statute.
[1] A mandatory life sentence for first-degree murder, when the death penalty is not imposed, is not an illegal sentence.
[2] A claim that restitution was imposed without a separate hearing or determination of ability to pay does not render a sentence illegal under rule 3.800(a).
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Rule 3.800(a) "is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process."”
Establishes the narrow scope of rule 3.800(a) motions, limited to illegal sentences rather than procedural or constitutional errors in sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGraham was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. He filed a rule 3.800(a) motion raising three claims: (1) and (3) that he…
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 Ability To Pay Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
James Graham appeals the denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm as none of the claims have merit.
Graham was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. In his rule 3.800(a) motion, he raised three claims. Claims one and three alleged that he should not have received a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison and instead should have been sentenced to life in prison with a twenty-five-year mandatory minimum. He mistakenly relies on Dean v. State, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D172 (Fla. 1st DCA Jan. 24, 2011), which was withdrawn on motion for rehearing. In Dean, the First District initially reversed a mandatory minimum of life in prison for armed robbery and armed burglary. Dean v. State, 58 So.3d 322, 323 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). On rehearing, it withdrew the original opinion and concluded that based on Mendenhall v. State, 48 So.3d 740 (Fla.2010), the trial court could impose a mandatory minimum sentence “within the range of 25 years to life” under section 775.087(2)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2008), where the discharge of a firearm during an enumerated offense caused death. Dean, 58 So.3d at 323. Graham is convicted of a capital offense, and because he did not receive the death penalty, the only possible sentence is life without parole. § 775.082(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). The mandatory life sentence is not illegal.
Graham’s second claim alleged that he was denied due process when the court ordered restitution without holding a separate restitution hearing and by failing to determine that he has the ability to pay. The alleged error in imposing restitution does not result in an illegal sentence because it does not impose a “ ‘kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.’ ” See Carter v. State, 786 So.2d 1173, 1181 (Fla.2001) (quoting Blakley v. State, 746 So.2d 1182, 1187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)). Rule 3.800(a) “is not a vehicle designed to re-examine whether the procedure employed to impose the punishment comported with statutory law and due process.” Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73, 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); see also Jerry v. State, 15 So.3d 812, 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The motion was not under oath, and the claim of trial court error would be procedurally barred from being raised in a rule 3.850 motion. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(c) (“This rule does not authorize relief based on grounds that could have or should have been raised at trial and, if properly preserved, on direct appeal of the judgment and sentence.”). In addition, the court was not required to determine *110his ability to pay at the time it imposed restitution. Del Valle v. State, 80 So.3d 999, 1006 (Fla.2011).
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of appellant’s rule 8.800(a) motion. Affirmed.
GROSS, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pitts v. State, 202 So. 3d 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…the issue is not whether the trial court imposed a legal sentence. Appellant’s sentence of life in prison for first degree murder, with a minimum mandatory of life under the 10/20/Life statute, was undoubtedly a legal sentence. See Graham v. State, 160 So. 3d 108, 109 (Fla, 4th DCA 2016); Clowers v. State, 31 So. 3d 962, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Rather, the issue is whether the trial court had the discretion to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years in prison under the 10/20/Life statute, even thou…
-
Heare v. State, 283 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 786 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 2001)
- Judge v. State, 596 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Blakley v. State, 746 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)
- Corey v. Corey, 48 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 2010)
- Mendenhall v. State, 48 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 2010)
- Shameen A. Dean v. State, 58 So. 3d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Echevarria v. State, 15 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Jerry v. State, 15 So. 3d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)