Solomon v. State
Solomon v. State
Opinion of the Court
We affirm the convictions but remand to the trial court to delete the 10 year probation provision in counts I, II and IV. The oral pronouncement of sentence limited probation to count III only. Martindale v. State, 678 So.2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Davis v. State, 677 So.2d 1366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
070rehearing
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
It appearing that in affirming we overlooked relevant recent precedent from this court on defendant’s issue as to the illegality of his sentence, we grant rehearing.
Defendant pleaded guilty to three felony counts under an agreement to be sentenced within the guidelines and without habitual felony offender treatment.
We decided this issue in Myers v. State, 696 So.2d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. granted, 703 So.2d 477 (Fla. 1997). There we held that the court may not enhance a recommended sentence that already exceeds the maximum set by the penalty statute by a further extension within the guidelines range. Myers requires that we reverse the sentence in this case and remand with instructions to resen-tence defendant to the sentence recommended by the guidelines scoresheet.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING ON COUNT TV TO RECOMMENDED SENTENCE UNDER GUIDELINES.
DELL and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
. As we affirm on all other issues and the sentences on the other counts are not affected by this issue, we therefore leave them undisturbed.
. See 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1995).
.Defendant did not raise this issue in the trial court, but an illegal sentence within the meaning of Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193, 1196 (Fla. 1995) ("[A]n illegal sentence is one that exceeds
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Donald SOLOMON v. STATE of Florida
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Published