MAURICE LINDSEY
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Maurice Lindsey appealed an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence imposed upon revocation of probation. Lindsey challenged the sentence as violating double jeopardy protections, claiming he should not be re-sentenced to the same mandatory minimum he had already served. The appellate court affirmed the denial of his motion, finding no constitutional violation.
The court affirmed the denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence, finding no merit to the double jeopardy claim because Lindsey was properly credited for the ten years of mandatory minimum imprisonment he had already served upon his original conviction.
[1] Upon revocation of probation and recommitment to the Department of Corrections, a sentencing court must order credit for time served in prison or jail on the original sen…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLindsey was originally convicted of robbery with a firearm, for which he received a ten-year minimum mandatory sentence. He was later placed on probat…
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 Correction Of Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 6, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-0836 Lower Tribunal No. F05-31667A, F05-31668A ________________
Maurice Lindsey,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose L. Fernandez, Judge. Maurice Lindsey, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina L. Dominguez, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before HENDON, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ. MILLER, J.
Appellant, Maurice Lindsey, challenges an order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. As he was properly credited for the ten-year minimum mandatory he served upon his original conviction, we find no merit in the claim that the sentence imposed upon revocation of probation violated his constitutional safeguards against double jeopardy. See § 921.0017, Fla. Stat. (2021) (providing that when probation is revoked, the sentencing court shall order credit for time served in state prison or county jail, upon recommitment to the Department of Corrections, and “shall direct the Department of Corrections to compute and apply credit” for prior prison credit); § 948.06(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (upon violation of probation, the sentencing judge may “impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer or offender on probation”); § 775.087(2)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (“Any person who is convicted of a felony . . . and the conviction was for: . . . [r]obbery . . . and during the commission of the offense, such person actually possessed a ‘firearm’ or ‘destructive device’ as those terms are defined in s[ection] 790.001, shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of [ten] years.”); see also Martinez v. State, 211 So. 3d 989, 991 (Fla. 2017) (sentencing error that can be corrected under rule 3.800(a) must be apparent from face of original record). Accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.