From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lynch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 15, 2005
898 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Opinion

No. 2D04-4489.

April 15, 2005.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Thomas S. Reese, Judge.

Paul David Lynch, pro se.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese C. Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.


Paul David Lynch appeals the summary denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion and contemporaneously filed rule 3.800(a) motion. We affirm the trial court's denial of Lynch's rule 3.850 motion without comment. However, having found that Lynch's rule 3.800(a) motion correctly asserts that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence, we reverse.

Section 958.04(2)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), provides that the total term of incarceration and probation a court can impose on a defendant designated as a youthful offender is limited to six years. By sentencing Lynch as a youthful offender and also imposing an adult sentence of ten years' probation, the trial court, as the State correctly concedes, imposed a sentence which violated Florida law. See Louissaint v. State, 727 So.2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).

Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's denial of Lynch's rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for resentencing in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Youthful Offender Act.

§§ 958.01—.15.

Reversed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lynch v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Apr 15, 2005
898 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)
Case details for

Lynch v. State

Case Details

Full title:Paul David LYNCH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Apr 15, 2005

Citations

898 So. 2d 277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

Citing Cases

Porter v. State

Appellant's current sentence is well in excess of this statutory maximum. Contrary to the reasoning of the…