Richardson v. State
| Decision Date | 26 January 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D06-0213.,1D06-0213. |
| Citation | 947 So.2d 1219 |
| Parties | James E. RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James E. Richardson, pro se, Appellant.
Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
The appellant challenges the trial court's summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. Because the appellant raises facially sufficient claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and illegal sentence, we reverse.
On January 14, 2005, the appellant pled no contest to child abuse and was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment pursuant to a plea agreement. During the sentencing hearing, counsel argued that the state did not have any objection to running the sentence concurrently with the appellant's sentence for violating his control-release, but it would be up to the Department of Corrections to determine whether the sentences would be concurrent or consecutive. The trial court agreed with this argument and stated that it could not order the sentences to run concurrently to each other.
The appellant filed a timely rule 3.850 motion, which was summarily denied by the trial court, arguing that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court's misstatement of the law and that his sentence was illegal. The law is clear that a trial court may order a sentence to run concurrently or consecutively to a pending control-release violation. Scantling v. State, 711 So.2d 524, 525-26 (Fla. 1998). In fact, the trial court must exercise its discretion to order a sentence imposed for an offense committed while on community release concurrent or consecutive to his or her community release sentence and cannot defer the structure of the sentence to the Department of Corrections because the Department lacks such sentencing authority. § 921.16(1), Fla. Stat. (2004); Byrd v. State, 853 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); McCarthur v. State, 766 So.2d 292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)( that the trial court must exercise its discretion to sentence the offender to concurrent or consecutive sentences); Art. I, § 18, Fla. Const. (); Pearson v. Moore, 767 So.2d 1235, 1238-39 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)( that the power to sentence rests entirely with the courts), affirmed, 767 So.2d 1235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Therefore, the appellant has stated a valid reason for his counsel to object.
Additionally, the appellant's sentence is illegal because the recommended sentence is of such a nature that it imposes a kind of punishment that no judge under the entire body of sentencing statutes could possibly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Larson v. State
...McCarthur v. State, 766 So.2d 292, 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) ; accord Widemond, 27 So.3d at 163 ; see also Richardson v. State, 947 So.2d 1219, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("[A] trial court may order a sentence to run concurrently or consecutively to a pending control-release violation." (citing......
-
Bivins v. State Of Fla.
...filed a motion to correct sentencing error, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Citing Richardson v. State, 947 So.2d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), appellant argued that the sentencing court failed to “exercise its discretion to order a sentence imposed for an offe......
-
Peters v. State
... ... Mr. Peters alleged that the DOC forfeited his earned gain time; as a result, the DOC decided that he will serve his eight-year sentences consecutively to his forfeited gain time.Mr. Peters compared his circumstances to those in White v. State, 19 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), and Richardson v. State, 947 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). In White, the appellant was arrested on a drug charge while on parole. 19 So. 3d at 407. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-four months' imprisonment to run concurrently with incarceration to be served upon revocation of his parole "at the ... ...
-
Widemond v. State
... ... In Richardson v. State, 947 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), a defendant filed a 3.850 motion asserting that counsel was ineffective for advising him that the trial court had no authority to run his sentence concurrently to a conditional-release sentence. Id. at 1220. The trial court agreed and stated that it ... ...