From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Floyd v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 11, 1999
739 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Summary

holding that because the HFO statute did not specifically allow for the imposition of the fine required by chapter 893, that fine constituted an illegal sentence

Summary of this case from McGraw v. State

Opinion

No. 99-01527.

Opinion filed August 11, 1999.

Appeal pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(i) from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Richard A. Luce, Judge.


Michael Floyd is appealing the summary denial of his motion for correction of an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because the sentence imposed on Floyd exceeds the statutory maximum, we reverse.

Floyd pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine in violation of section 893.135(1)(b)(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991). He was sentenced under section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1991), as a habitual offender to ten years in prison, and was fined $10,000. However, section 775.084 does not authorize any fines. Consequently, the imposition of the fine, in addition to the habitual offender sentence, exceeds the maximum allowed by the statute, and must be reversed. See Webster v. State, 705 So.2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). On remand, the trial court is directed to strike the $10,000 fine. Floyd's presence at the resentencing is not required.

Reversed and remanded.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Floyd v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Aug 11, 1999
739 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

holding that because the HFO statute did not specifically allow for the imposition of the fine required by chapter 893, that fine constituted an illegal sentence

Summary of this case from McGraw v. State

reversing summary denial of rule 3.800 motion challenging imposition of $10,000 fine for violation of section 893.135(b)1.a., Fla. Stat., because defendant was sentenced under section 775.084, which does not authorize any fines, and directing the trial court to strike the fine on remand

Summary of this case from Williams v. State

In Floyd v. State, 739 So.2d 1241 (Fla. 2d DGA 1999), this court appeared to extend the holding in Webster to apply to a fine imposed under the 1991 version of section 893.135(1)(b)(1)(a).

Summary of this case from Baker v. State
Case details for

Floyd v. State

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL FLOYD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Aug 11, 1999

Citations

739 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Willits v. State

Willits is correct in claiming that his sentence for armed robbery is illegal because section 775.084 does…

Williams v. State

Following this court's affirmance of the direct appeal, Defendant timely filed the instant motion for…