WILLIE JAMES GOULD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Willie James Gould appeals his sentence for attempted robbery as a habitual offender, arguing the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. The court vacates the attempted robbery sentence while affirming the sentences for three counts of robbery with a deadly weapon, finding that the seventeen-year sentence for attempted robbery exceeded the ten-year statutory maximum for a third-degree felony even with habitual offender enhancement.
The court held that the seventeen-year sentence for attempted robbery exceeds the statutory maximum of ten years by seven years and must be vacated. Only the attempted robbery sentence is vacated; the sentences for the three robberies with a deadly weapon are valid and remain in effect because they do not exceed statutory maximums.
[1] A sentence imposed under the habitual offender statute that exceeds the statutory maximum penalty for the underlying offense is unlawful.
[2] A habitual offender sentence is not subject to the sentencing guideline principles requiring remand of all sentences imposed under a single scoresheet when an error occur…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The enhanced statutory maximum penalty is ten years for a third-degree felony under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1989). Therefore, the seventeen-year sentence for the attempted robbery exceeds the statutory maximum by seven years.”
Establishes that the sentence imposed violates statutory limits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGould was convicted of attempted strong-arm robbery and three counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to seven…
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 Statutory Maximum Penalty cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Willie James Gould appeals his sentence for attempted robbery. He claims that, even with enhancement by the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1989), the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. We vacate the sentence for the attempted robbery.
In addition to the attempted robbery conviction, Gould also was convicted of three counts of robbery with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to seventeen years’ incarceration for the attempt, with concurrent terms of natural life for the three robberies. The life sentences were suspended, conditioned upon completion of fifteen years’ probation consecutive to the seventeen-year sentence imposed on the attempt conviction.
Attempted strong arm robbery is a felony of the third degree. §§ 777.04(4)(c), 812.13(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1989). The enhanced statutory maximum penalty is ten years for a third-degree felony under the habitual offender statute, section 775.084(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1989). Therefore, the seventeen-year sentence for the attempted robbery exceeds the statutory maximum by seven years.
While conceding the error, the state urges that the sentences for all four offenses should be reversed to ensure that Gould receives a total of seventeen years’ incarceration. The state relies on the sentencing guideline principle that all sentences imposed under a single scoresheet must be remanded when there is an error in the score. See, e.g., Lape v. State, 569 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The problem with this reliance is that a scoresheet is irrelevant when a defendant is sentenced as a habitual offender. See § 775.084(4)(e), Fla.Stat. (1989). Careful consideration must be given to the sentence imposed simultaneously for each crime lest the conviction or sentence for one or more of the crimes is reversed. Since Gould’s sentence for the attempted robbery is the only one exceeding the statutory maximum, we can vacate only that one. The remaining sentences are valid.
We vacate only the sentence for the attempted robbery and remand for resentencing.
Sentence VACATED; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and W. SHARP, JJ„ concur.