Chesson v. State

729 So. 2d 974, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 3123, 1999 WL 140879
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 17, 1999·No. No. 98-2062·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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

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

729 So. 2d 974 (Chesson v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

BARTON HILL v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2021
Thacker v. Singletary
145 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (S.D. Florida, 2000)