Shaw v. State, 4D01-5051.
| Decision Date | 25 September 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D01-5051.,4D01-5051. |
| Parties | Michael J. SHAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Shaw, Madison, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Don M. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Michael J. Shaw appeals from the trial court's order summarily granting in part and denying in part his rule 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence.
Shaw entered a negotiated plea in three cases on July 1, 1999. In case number 98-25099 CF10A, he was adjudicated guilty of burglary of an occupied dwelling, a second degree felony, aggravated stalking, a third degree felony, and two counts of resisting/obstructing without violence, first degree misdemeanors. He was sentenced to two years in prison followed by three years probation. In case number 99-278 CF10A, he was adjudicated guilty of burglary of a structure with a battery, a first degree felony, and was sentenced to two years in prison followed by four years probation. In 99-1258 CF10A, he was adjudicated guilty of aggravated assault, a third degree felony, and three counts of false imprisonment, also third degree felonies. He was sentenced to two years in prison followed by four years probation. All sentences ran concurrently.
On May 24, 2001, appellant's probation was revoked due to a technical violation and an arrest for armed robbery. The armed robbery charge was nolle prossed at appellant's violation of probation hearing. Thereafter, he was re-sentenced in case number 98-25099 CF10A to 150 months; in 99-278 CF10A to 77.25 months; and in 99-1258 CF10A to 150 months. Again, all sentences ran concurrently.
On August 8, 2001, appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing that the trial court erred in "imposing an upward departure sentence" because it violated his double jeopardy rights since he entered a negotiated plea to youthful offender sentences. He asserted that as a youthful offender who violated his probation on technical grounds, he could not receive a sentence for a period longer than six years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he was found guilty, whichever was less.
In its order, the trial court found that the sentence of 150 months in 98-25099 CF10A for the aggravated stalking count was illegal because it exceeded the statutory maximum of five years and the lowest permissible sentence under the guidelines scoresheet. Thus, the trial court vacated the sentence and imposed a new sentence of 97.65 months (the lowest permissible sentence under the guidelines). As for 99-1258 CF10A, the trial court vacated the 150 month sentences and imposed new sentences of 97.65 months because the 150 month sentences exceeded the five year statutory maximum for the third degree felonies. The trial court denied appellant's motion in all other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bryant v. State, 4D03-3732.
...are true, then Bryant's sentence would be illegal and he would be entitled to relief under rule 3.800(a). See Shaw v. State, 826 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Hill v. State, 698 So.2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Swilley v. State, 781 So.2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Schebel v. State, 721 So.2d 1......
-
Ward v. State
...State, 697 So.2d 584 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Accordingly, the order is reversed and remanded for further consideration. See Shaw v. State, 826 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Any subsequent denial shall be supported with attachments of portions of the record refuting the STONE and GROSS, JJ., c......