Hoffman v. State
Opinion
Edward Hoffman appeals the denial by the trial court of his motion and amended motion to correct an illegal sentence. We affirm.
Hoffman alleges that the sentencing guidelines were improperly applied to his offenses, and that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction over one-third of his sentence. Both arguments are without merit. A review of the record clearly reflects that the crimes for which Hoffman was sentenced were committed before July 1, 1984, the effective date of the sentencing guidelines, as recently determined by the supreme court in Smith v. State, 537 So.2d 982 (Fla.1989).
Hoffman did not elect to be sentenced under the sentencing guidelines. The record reflects that this sentence was imposed based upon a plea bargain in which Hoffman participated. Therefore, the judge imposing the sentence was not required to adhere to the sentencing guidelines. The trial court so found in denying the motion and amended motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
550 So. 2d 148 (Hoffman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.