Chesson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Chesson v. State

729 So. 2d 974, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3123, 1999 WL 140879

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 17, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2062

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 729 So. 2d 974 (Chesson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chesson v. State, 729 So. 2d 974, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3123, 1999 WL 140879 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the denial of his motion made pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 to vacate his twenty year sentence entered pursuant to a plea agreement on the grounds that it is illegal. For purposes of rule 3.800, an illegal sentence is one that exceeds the maximum period set forth by law for a particular offense without regard to the guidelines. See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193, 1196 (Fla.1995); Wright v. State, 711 So.2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Hinson v. State, 709 So.2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); State v. Moten, 698 So.2d 1345, 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Skidmore v. State, 688 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The sentence imposed upon the ap*pellant is less than the statutory maximum sentence for the crimes that he committed¹ and is therefore not an illegal sentence as prescribed under rule 3.800. Therefore, finding no merit to the appellant’s argument, we affirm the order under review.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals the denial of his motion made pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.800 to vacate his twenty year sentence entered pursuant to a plea agreement on the grounds that it is illegal. For purposes of rule 3.800, an illegal sentence is one that exceeds the maximum period set forth by law for a particular offense without regard to the guidelines. See Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193, 1196 (Fla.1995); Wright v. State, 711 So.2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Hinson v. State, 709 So.2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); State v. Moten, 698 So.2d 1345, 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Skidmore v. State, 688 So.2d 1014, 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). The sentence imposed upon the ap*pellant is less than the statutory maximum sentence for the crimes that he committed¹ and is therefore not an illegal sentence as prescribed under rule 3.800. Therefore, finding no merit to the appellant’s argument, we affirm the order under review.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

729 So. 2d 974, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3123, 1999 WL 140879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chesson-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack