Thomas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Thomas v. State

777 So. 2d 1085, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 239, 2001 WL 38677

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 2001

DocketNo. 2D00-3096

StatusPublished

This text of 777 So. 2d 1085 (Thomas 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

Thomas v. State, 777 So. 2d 1085, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 239, 2001 WL 38677 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Henry Thomas appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the trial court’s order and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Thomas claimed that he was illegally sentenced to seventeen years’ incarceration on his convictions for robbery, a second-degree felony punishable by a maximum sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. See §§ 812.13(2)(e), 775.082(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court’s order did not deny that the sentences were beyond the statutory maximum but instead relied upon Willis v. State, 736 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), for the proposition that Thomas’s sentence may exceed the statutory maximum as long as it is within his guidelines scoresheet range.

However, prior to January 1, 1994, a trial court could not impose a guidelines sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum. See Mays v. State, 717 So.2d 515 (Fla.1998). Therefore, from the limited record before this court, it appears that Thomas’s seventeen-year sentence on these second-degree felonies may be illegal.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute Thomas’s claim. Otherwise, it should resentence Thomas within the statutory maximum.

PATTERSON, C.J., and ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Henry Thomas appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse the trial court’s order and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Thomas claimed that he was illegally sentenced to seventeen years’ incarceration on his convictions for robbery, a second-degree felony punishable by a maximum sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. See §§ 812.13(2)(e), 775.082(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (1993). The trial court’s order did not deny that the sentences were beyond the statutory maximum but instead relied upon Willis v. State, 736 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), for the proposition that Thomas’s sentence may exceed the statutory maximum as long as it is within his guidelines scoresheet range.

However, prior to January 1, 1994, a trial court could not impose a guidelines sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum. See Mays v. State, 717 So.2d 515 (Fla.1998). Therefore, from the limited record before this court, it appears that Thomas’s seventeen-year sentence on these second-degree felonies may be illegal.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall attach those portions of the record that conclusively refute Thomas’s claim. Otherwise, it should resentence Thomas within the statutory maximum.

PATTERSON, C.J., and ALTENBERND and NORTHCUTT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

777 So. 2d 1085, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 239, 2001 WL 38677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack