Trueblood v. State, 92-1527
Decision Date | 18 November 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 92-1527,92-1527 |
Citation | 610 So.2d 12 |
Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2615 Steven Lopez TRUEBLOOD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Steven Lopez Trueblood has appealed from a sentence imposed after he pled nolo contendere to escape from a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) detention facility. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
Trueblood, a juvenile, tendered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge that he, "while a prisoner in the lawful custody of HRS Detention Facility, did then and there escape from such lawful confinement, contrary to Section 944.40, Florida Statutes." Section 944.40 makes it a second-degree felony for a "prisoner" to escape from "any prison, jail, road camp, or other penal institution, state, county, or municipal." The trial court accepted Trueblood's plea and, after making findings on five of the six factors set forth in section 39.059(7)(c)1.-6., Florida Statutes ( ), 1 sentenced him as an adult to 12 years' incarceration.
Relying on Danzy v. State, 603 So.2d 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), Trueblood argues that this sentence is illegal, in that it exceeds the statutory maximum term of 5 years for the third-degree felony of escape from a juvenile detention facility, contrary to section 39.061, Florida Statutes. In Danzy, the juvenile appellant received a 6-year sentence after pleading nolo contendere to an identical charge of "escape from a juvenile detention facility in violation of Sec. 944.40." Danzy argued that escape from a juvenile detention facility was contrary to section 39.112 (predecessor of section 39.061), and a third-degree felony, thus he could be sentenced to no more than the 5-year statutory maximum. This court agreed, holding that
[t]he factual allegations ... are sufficient to state [the offense] of escape from a juvenile detention facility, but they clearly do not allege escape from an adult prison or jail. For this reason, appellant's admitted escape is governed by section 39.112, not section 944.40. When allegations of fact in an information are sufficient to allege all the elements of an offense, such allegations of fact will ordinarily control over an erroneous reference to a statute, so that the reference to section 944.40 in the instant case should be treated as a scrivener's error. The maximum statutory sentence that could be imposed for this charge of escape, a third-degree felony, is five years' imprisonment. The sentence to six years on this charge is manifestly error.
The state in the instant case responds only that Trueblood has waived the issue by entering a plea. To the identical argument, the Danzy court responded:
Even though appellant did not complain of this error ... the characterization of the offense of escape as a second-degree felony in the appealed judgment and the sentence to six years' imprisonment amounts to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lacey v. State
...error in illegal sentence to six years' imprisonment where defendant escaped from juvenile detention center); Trueblood v. State, 610 So.2d 12, 13–14 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). As a result, we reverse and remand with directions to the trial court to afford appellant the opportunity to withdraw hi......
-
Trueblood v. State, 93-396
...an adult to 12 years incarceration. On appeal, this court reversed the 12-year sentence and remanded for resentencing. Trueblood v. State, 610 So.2d 12 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). On remand, this court directed the trial court to make specific written findings of fact on each of the factors set fo......
-
Cross-Examining Causation Experts
...speculation and, as such, was inadmissible. An expert witness’ opinion must be based on facts or inference supported by the evidence.” 610 So.2d at 12. Here, as in Ruth, [Defense Expert]’s conclusions are pure speculation, and are not based on facts or inferences supported by the evidence. ......