Frison v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frison v. State

533 So. 2d 954, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2569, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5112, 1988 WL 123689

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 23, 1988·No. No. 88-704·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

SHARP, Chief Judge.

Frison appeals his sentence of 100 years in prison which he received following his conviction for sexual battery with a deadly weapon in violation of section 794.011(3), Florida Statutes (1987). His sentencing guidelines scoresheet totalled 712 points, which corresponded to a recommended life sentence. The statutory maximum sentence for this offense was a term of imprisonment for life or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 40 years. See § 775.082(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987).

Appellant’s counsel opined that the sentencing error should be deemed harmless because under the guidelines, Frison might be better off with a 100 year term than with a life sentence. In view of this argument, we wonder why this appeal was taken. Illegal sentences (in excess of the stat[955] utory maximum) constitute fundamental error not subject to the curative application of harmless error. Reynolds v. State, 429 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); and Lawson v. State, 400 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We have no choice but to vacate the sentence and remand this cause for resen-tencing.

Sentence VACATED; cause REMANDED.

ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

SHARP, Chief Judge.

Frison appeals his sentence of 100 years in prison which he received following his conviction for sexual battery with a deadly weapon in violation of section 794.011(3), Florida Statutes (1987). His sentencing guidelines scoresheet totalled 712 points, which corresponded to a recommended life sentence. The statutory maximum sentence for this offense was a term of imprisonment for life or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 40 years. See § 775.082(3)(a), Fla.Stat. (1987).

Appellant’s counsel opined that the sentencing error should be deemed harmless because under the guidelines, Frison might be better off with a 100 year term than with a life sentence. In view of this argument, we wonder why this appeal was taken. Illegal sentences (in excess of the stat[955] utory maximum) constitute fundamental error not subject to the curative application of harmless error. Reynolds v. State, 429 So.2d 1331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); and Lawson v. State, 400 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We have no choice but to vacate the sentence and remand this cause for resen-tencing.

Sentence VACATED; cause REMANDED.

ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., concur.

Frison v. State, 533 So. 2d 954, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2569, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 5112, 1988 WL 123689 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

533 So. 2d 954 (Frison v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related