CHENTEE KEY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Chentee Key appeals his convictions for three counts of sexual battery, kidnapping, and armed robbery. The appellate court affirmed the sexual battery and kidnapping convictions but reversed the armed robbery conviction as time-barred and remanded for resentencing with a corrected scoresheet.
The armed robbery conviction must be vacated as time-barred prosecution. The trial court erred in applying the fifteen percent multiplier to the scoresheet because the defendant had more than forty sentence points, making the multiplier inapplicable. The appellate court declined to address ineffective assistance of counsel claims at this stage. The sexual battery and kidnapping convictions are affirmed.
[1] A prosecution for armed robbery may be raised for the first time on appeal as a matter of fundamental error if the State concedes the prosecution is time-barred.
[2] A conviction and sentence for armed robbery must be vacated when the prosecution is time-barred.
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“the prosecution for armed robbery was time-barred, and since the error appears clear on the face of the record, it is a matter of fundamental error which defendant-appellant Chentee Key is allowed to raise for the first time on this appeal”
Establishes that the time-bar error can be raised for the first time on appeal as fundamental error
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChentee Key was convicted of three counts of sexual battery, one count of kidnapping, and one count of armed robbery. The trial court calculated his s…
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 Sentencing Scoresheet cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of a judgment and sentence for three counts of sexual battery, one count of kidnapping, and one count of robbery. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The State concedes that the prosecution for armed robbery was time-barred, and since the error appears clear on the face of the record, it is a matter of fundamental error which defendant-appellant Chentee Key is allowed to raise for the first time on this appeal. See Tucker v. State, 417 So. 2d 1006, 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), approved on other grounds, 459 So. 2d 306, 309 (Fla.1984). Based on the State’s concession, the conviction and sentence for armed robbery must be vacated, and there must be a new sentencing hearing based on a recalculated scoresheet.
With regard to the scoresheet, the State concedes that the trial court erred by using the fifteen percent multiplier in calculating the defendant’s score. The fifteen percent multiplier is applicable only for cases where the defendant has forty sentence points or less. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.703(d)(25) (1996).1 Because the defendant has more than forty sentence points, the fifteen percent multiplier should not have been used and must be omitted when the scoresheet is recalculated on remand.
We decline to reach the merits of the defendant’s claims that his trial counsel was ineffective. If the defendant wishes to pursue such claims, he may do so by filing an appropriate motion for postconvietion relief. We express no opinion on the merits of any such motion.
We affirm with regard to the remaining points on appeal.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
. The crime date was April 8, 1996.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Earvin Smith v. State, 211 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…med burglary, alleged in the 2011 information as having been committed in 1990, was on its face barred by the statute of limitations. Smith did not raise this challenge in the trial court, but contends that, pursuant to our decision in Key v. State, 990 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), he is permitted to raise this issue, for the first time on appeal, as fundamental error requiring reversal. 2. Conflicting decisions within this District The defendant in Key was charged with and found guilty of armed robbery.…
-
Chentee Maurice KEY v. State, 13 So. 3d 1113 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. This is an appeal of an order summarily denying a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the motion was filed within two years after the issuance of the mandate in Key v. State, 990 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), it could also be viewed as a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. In the motion, defendant-appellant Key contends that the charging document and verdict form do not support a convicti…
-
Guzman v. State, 211 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…efendant may raise the statute of limitations for the first time on direct appeal (as the defendant has done here), as a matter of fundamental error, such that it need not have been pleaded as an affirmative defense in the trial court. Key v. State, 990 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). In a decision in another case issued today, however, the continued viability of the holding in Key is called into question and our Court certifies to the Supreme Court of [*206] Florida a question of great public importance: Mus…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Melvee Tucker v. State, 459 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1984)
- Miller v. Miller, 417 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)