Rouse v. State, 91-991
| Decision Date | 09 June 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-991,91-991 |
| Citation | 601 So.2d 281 |
| Parties | George ROUSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 601 So.2d 281, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1489 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
George Rouse, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Gypsy Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
This case is before the court on appeal of the trial court's denial of appellant's motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
On June 17, 1987, appellant, George Rouse, was charged with six counts of burglary and one count of possession of burglary tools. On July 2, 1987, appellant was charged with two counts of burglary in another case. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, appellant pled nolo contendere to the nine charged offenses, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of incarceration on counts I and II in the first case and counts I and II in the second case. Appellant also received a term of probation for count III in the first case, to run consecutively to concurrent terms of probation for counts IV through VII in that case.
Following his release from incarceration, appellant was again charged with burglary on November 10, 1988. Appellant pled nolo contendere to this burglary charge with the understanding that he would receive a ten year sentence as an habitual felony offender, and with the further understanding that he would receive a five year sentence for violation of probation on count III of the prior case, to run consecutive to concurrent five year sentences for violation of probation on counts IV through VII. On direct appeal, this court per curiam affirmed appellant's judgments and sentences. Rouse v. State, 563 So.2d 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
On motion to correct an illegal sentence, appellant contends that the five year sentences imposed for violation of probation on count III and counts IV through VII exceed the one-cell maximum "bump-up" permissible under Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989), and Ree v. State, 565 So.2d 1329 (Fla.1990). 1 Thus, appellant contends, he could not consent to the "illegal" sentence imposed, relying on Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501 (Fla.1986), clarified in Quarterman v. State, 527 So.2d 1380 (Fla.1988).
Appellant's claim may not be advanced via a Rule 3.800(a) motion. Rule 3.800(a) is reserved for a narrow class of cases in which the sentence imposed can be described as truly "illegal" as a matter of law,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanderblomen v. State
...the statutory maximum sentence for the crime charged," Nowlin v. State, 639 So.2d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Rouse v. State, 601 So.2d 281, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla.1992), this court nevertheless took the position that claims for additional presentencing ja......
-
Harper v. State, 92-2344
...3.800(a), and in support thereof cites Judge v. State, 596 So.2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 613 So.2d 5 (Fla.1992); Rouse v. State, 601 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla.1992); Kelly v. State, 599 So.2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); and Simmons v. State, 579 So.2d......
-
State v. Mancino
...the statutory maximum sentence for the crime charged," Nowlin v. State, 639 So.2d 1050, 1052 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Rouse v. State, 601 So.2d 281, 282 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla.1992), this court nevertheless took the position that claims for additional presentencing ja......
-
Nowlin v. State, 93-2153
...a matter of law, for example, where the sentence imposed exceeds the statutory maximum sentence for the crime charged." Rouse v. State, 601 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), rev. denied, 604 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1992). See also, Kelly v. State, 599 So.2d 727 (Fla. 1st DCA As Judge Altenbernd noted ......