STEVIE GARNER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court reversed the denial of a motion to correct an illegal sentence, finding that a general sentence imposed for multiple counts was unlawful. The court remanded the case for the imposition of separate sentences for each count.
Yes, a general sentence covering multiple counts is an illegal sentence. The court held that Garner is entitled to distinct sentences for each individual count.
[1] A trial court may not impose a single general sentence covering multiple counts; a separate, distinct sentence must be imposed for each individual offense.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“But a general sentence covering multiple counts is an illegal sentence.”
Establishes the core legal principle that led to the reversal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStevie Garner pleaded guilty to first-degree murder, burglary, and grand theft as part of a plea agreement. The trial court imposed a general sentence…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse General Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
KHOUZAM, Judge. Stevie Garner appeals the order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Because Garner's general sentence was illegal, we reverse
the denial of claim two of his motion.
We affirm in all other respects. In 1998, Garner was charged with first-degree murder (count one), burglary with assault or battery (count two), and grand theft (count three). After the State announced that it would seek the death penalty, Garner entered into a negotiated plea agreement, agreeing to plead guilty to all counts in exchange for a sentence of life in prison on count one and guidelines sentences on counts two and three.
However, the trial court ultimately imposed a general sentence of life in prison on counts one and two as well as a concurrent term of five years in prison on count three.
In February 2021, Garner filed a motion to correct illegal sentence. In claim two of his motion, he argued that the general sentence on counts one and two was illegal and that he is entitled to distinct sentences for each individual count. The postconviction court rejected this claim and denied Garner's motion. But a general sentence covering multiple counts is an illegal sentence. See Munoz v. State, 218 So. 3d 459, 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) ("The sentence on all the counts is an illegal general sentence."); Holmes v. State, 100 So. 3d 281, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA
2012) (reversing denial of claim asserting illegal sentence because "a trial court may not impose a single general sentence to cover multiple counts"); Brazley v. State, 871 So. 2d 986, 987 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (accepting State's concession that sentence was illegal due to prohibition on "general sentences for multiple convictions"). The appropriate remedy for an illegal general sentence is "a vacation of the general sentence and entry of a separate, distinct sentence for each of the individual counts." Holmes, 100 So. 3d at 283; see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.701(d)(12) ("A sentence must be imposed for each offense.").
Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the order denying claim two of Garner's rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for the postconviction court to vacate the original general sentence and enter separate, distinct sentences for counts one and two. See Holmes, 100 So. 3d at 283; Brazley, 871 So. 2d at 987.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. LaROSE and SLEET, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Holmes v. State, 100 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Brazley v. State, 871 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Munoz v. State, 218 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)