Cioeta v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cioeta v. State

781 So. 2d 504, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4248, 2001 WL 321099

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 4, 2001

DocketNo. 3D00-1165

StatusPublished

This text of 781 So. 2d 504 (Cioeta 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

Cioeta v. State, 781 So. 2d 504, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4248, 2001 WL 321099 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Don Evans Cioeta appeals the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging his sentence of twenty-seven years in prison. The State has properly confessed error. We therefore reverse and remand.

On August 21, 1989, Cioeta pled guilty to multiple crimes, all of which were second and third degree felonies. The statutory maximum permissible sentences for these crimes at the time Cioeta entered his plea were five years for a third degree felony and fifteen years for a second degree felony. Prior to January 1, 1994, a court could not impose a guideline sentence which exceeded the statutory maximum. See Bernard v. State, 571 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). As the trial court imposed concurrent sentences, the maximum sentence allowed was fifteen years. Thus, on remand, the trial court should impose consecutive sentences in order to bring the sentences within the recommended guidelines. See Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512, 513-14 (Fla.1990); Thompson v. State, 558 So.2d 111, 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

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

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Don Evans Cioeta appeals the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, challenging his sentence of twenty-seven years in prison. The State has properly confessed error. We therefore reverse and remand.

On August 21, 1989, Cioeta pled guilty to multiple crimes, all of which were second and third degree felonies. The statutory maximum permissible sentences for these crimes at the time Cioeta entered his plea were five years for a third degree felony and fifteen years for a second degree felony. Prior to January 1, 1994, a court could not impose a guideline sentence which exceeded the statutory maximum. See Bernard v. State, 571 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). As the trial court imposed concurrent sentences, the maximum sentence allowed was fifteen years. Thus, on remand, the trial court should impose consecutive sentences in order to bring the sentences within the recommended guidelines. See Branam v. State, 554 So.2d 512, 513-14 (Fla.1990); Thompson v. State, 558 So.2d 111, 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

781 So. 2d 504, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4248, 2001 WL 321099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cioeta-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack