Hartel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hartel v. State

939 So. 2d 222, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17015, 2006 WL 2918767

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 13, 2006·No. No. 5D06-2233·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the lower court’s order that denied his motion to correct sentences imposed in two cases. We affirm except as to the sentences imposed on counts two and three in lower court case number 1993-CF-10677. Because the sentences on those two counts exceeded the statutory máximums for second degree felonies, which felonies occurred in 1991 and 1992, the sentences are illegal under the then-applicable sentencing scheme. Stewart v. State, 755 So.2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Upon remand, the trial court shall resentence Appellant to the statutory maximum of fifteen years on each count.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the lower court’s order that denied his motion to correct sentences imposed in two cases. We affirm except as to the sentences imposed on counts two and three in lower court case number 1993-CF-10677. Because the sentences on those two counts exceeded the statutory máximums for second degree felonies, which felonies occurred in 1991 and 1992, the sentences are illegal under the then-applicable sentencing scheme. Stewart v. State, 755 So.2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). Upon remand, the trial court shall resentence Appellant to the statutory maximum of fifteen years on each count.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.

SAWAYA, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Hartel v. State, 939 So. 2d 222, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 17015, 2006 WL 2918767 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

939 So. 2d 222 (Hartel v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related