Costin v. State Of Fla., CASE NO. 1D09-2723

• Decision Date: 06 October 2010
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 1D09-2723
• Parties: CYNTHIA COSTIN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

CYNTHIA COSTIN, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

CASE NO. 1D09-2723

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA

Opinion filed October 6, 2010.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Wakulla County.

N. Sanders Sauls, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Kathleen Stover, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Ian M. Cotner, Assistant Attorney General, and Natalie D. Kirk, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Cynthia Costin, Appellant, challenges her judgments and sentences for two counts of fraudulent use of a credit card more than twice in six months, two counts of felony theft, and one count of grand theft. Appellant raises two issues on appeal, only one of which merits discussion. She correctly argues that her five concurrent

Page 2

sentences of seventy-six months' imprisonment for these third-degree felonies were illegal and must be corrected. Accordingly, although we affirm the judgments, we reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant pled nolo contendere to each of the charged offenses and agreed to serve seventy-six months in the Department of Corrections. The trial court accepted Appellant's plea and sentenced her to five concurrent terms of seventy-six months' imprisonment. She challenged the legality of these sentences in a motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) and now raises the same issue in this Court.

The State argues that Appellant is not entitled to challenge the legality of her sentences because they were entered pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. This argument is erroneous. Trial courts are not permitted to impose illegal sentences, even pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement. Darling v. State, 886 So. 2d 417, 418 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (reversing a sentence that exceeded the statutory maximum even though the defendant had agreed to the sentence); Bruno v. State, 837 So. 2d 521, 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing where the defendant's sentence included a type of penalty not authorized by law); Williams v. State, 500 So. 2d 501, 503 (Fla. 1986) (stating the...