Nune v. State

944 So. 2d 1173, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 20854, 2006 WL 3678508
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 15, 2006·No. No. 5D06-3111·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We review the summary denial of Appellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion. We reverse because the trial court did not attach record support to refute Appellant’s claim that his sentence on the third-degree felony in Marion County case number 04-2524 was illegal.

Although Appellant’s sentences on the second-degree felonies were proper because they fell within the statutory maximum, Appellant’s sentence of 80.325 months on the third-degree felony exceeded the statutory maximum for that offense. Therefore, the sentence was illegal unless his Criminal Punishment Code score authorized the sentence. The scoresheet, however, includes 80 points for penetration that Appellant asserts is a fact that was not established in compliance with Appren-di1 and its progeny.

On remand the court shall either subtract 40 points2 from Appellant’s score-sheet and resentence him accordingly or attach portions of the record that refute his claim.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

PALMER, TORPY and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

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

Nune v. State, 944 So. 2d 1173, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 20854, 2006 WL 3678508 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

944 So. 2d 1173 (Nune v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Apprendi v. New Jersey
530 U.S. 466 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Hindenach v. State
807 So. 2d 739 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)