Summary
reversing trial court's order denying the defendant's motion to correct under the theory that the sentences, which exceeded the statutory maximum, were the result of a negotiated plea
Summary of this case from Kinney v. StateOpinion
Case No. 1D00-4347
Opinion filed December 31, 2001.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Dedee S. Costello, Judge.
Appellant, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ORDER ON APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR REHEARING
James Debord appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence alleging various scoring errors in his sentencing scoresheet. The trial court denied the motion reasoning that the sentences were the result of a negotiated plea rather than the sentencing guidelines. See Bell v. State, 26 Fla. L. Weekly D2419, D2419 (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 9, 2001); Brown v. State, 781 So.2d 484, 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Boerstler v. State, 622 So.2d 184, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). But, in all but one case, Mr. Debord's sentences exceeded the statutory maximum for the offenses. See Bell, 26 Fla. L. Weekly at D2419; Hepburn v. State, 778 So.2d 448, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Dunenas v. Moore, 762 So.2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). Assuming his allegations are accurate, the sentences exceeding the statutory maximum would also exceed the guidelines range, and therefore be illegal. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to reach the merits of Mr. Debord's allegations.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ALLEN, C.J., BOOTH and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.