SHAMOND BYRD, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Shamond Byrd appeals the denial of his motion to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, arguing that his life sentence for second-degree murder required departure reasons under Florida's sentencing guidelines. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that when guideline points equal or exceed 363, a trial court may impose a life sentence without departure reasons.
The court held that when guideline points are 363 or more, the trial court may sentence an offender to life imprisonment without announcing departure reasons. The sentencing authority found in the guidelines is discretionary, not mandatory, and does not constitute a departure requiring stated reasons.
[1] A claim that a sentence was imposed without required departure reasons is not cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedu…
[2] A sentence is not rendered illegal by the absence of departure reasons.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If the total sentence points are equal to or greater than 363, the court may sentence the offender to life imprisonment.”
This establishes the statutory authority allowing life imprisonment without departure reasons when guideline points meet or exceed the threshold.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceByrd was convicted of second-degree murder with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, and carrying a concealed firearm. He received a life sen…
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 Cognizable Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Shamond Byrd appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Byrd was convicted of second degree murder with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, and carrying a concealed firearm. He received a term of life imprisonment with a three- year mandatory minimum sentence for the second degree murder conviction, fifteen years with a three-year mandatory minimum sentence for the aggravated battery, and five years for the concealed firearm conviction.
On direct appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and the defendant submitted a pro se brief. Among the issues raised in the pro se brief was the claim that the life sentence for the second degree murder conviction could not be imposed without departure reasons. This court affirmed the convictions and sentences without opinion. Byrd v. State, 788 So. 2d 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review dismissed, 791 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 937, 122 S.Ct. 1317, 152 L.Ed.2d 226 (2002).
Subsequently the defendant filed the instant motion to correct illegal sentence. In it, he again contends that the life sentence could not be imposed without departure reasons. As a threshold matter, it appears that this claim is procedurally barred because it was raised by the previous pro se brief and rejected. Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170, 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).
In an abundance of caution, we also address the merits of this claim. The defendant’s guidelines seoresheet provided a score of three hundred eighty-four state prison months. Under the applicable version of the guidelines, “If the total sentence points are equal to or greater than 363, the court may sentence the offender to life imprisonment.” § 921.0014(2), Fla. Stat. (1997).1 Since the points score 384, the court was authorized to impose the life sentence and did so.
The defendant argues that if the trial court wishes to use the authority to impose the life sentence in these circumstances, this amounts to a departure sentence and the trial court must announce departure reasons. The Fourth District Court of Appeal has so held. Franco v. State, 111 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
By this court’s affirmance of the direct appeal (wherein the defendant had submitted a pro se brief raising this exact issue), we have necessarily rejected that argument. If the sentence points are 363 or more, the court may sentence the offender to life imprisonment without departure reasons. Willis v. State, 785 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Cash v. State, 779 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Stoltzfus v. State, 735 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Kalapp v. State, 729 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
Affirmed.2
. The crime date was April 12, 1998.
. As a procedural matter, the defendant’s claim is not cognizable on a motion to correct illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). That is so because the absence of departure reasons does not render a sentence illegal. Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla.1995), receded from in part on other grounds, Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746, 748 (Fla.2002); Yero v. State, 781 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Since the instant Rule 3.800(a) motion was filed within two years of the affirmance of the defendant’s conviction, it can be treated as a timely Rule 3.850 motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shamond Byrd v. State, 897 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 2005)…PER CURIAM. We initially accepted jurisdiction to review Byrd v. State, 841 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. Upon further consideration, we now conclude that jurisdiction was improvidently granted. Accordingly, this review proceeding is dismissed. It is so ordered.…
-
Thomas v. State, 126 So. 3d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…think Franco was wrongly decided. All other courts which have reviewed this statute also disagree with Franco. See, e.g., Kalapp v. State, 729 So. 2d 987, 990 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Cash v. State, 779 So. 2d 425, 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Byrd v. State, 841 So. 2d 502, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Receding from Franco, however, is not essential to the result in this case.…
-
Byrd v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…) (table); Byrd v. State, 49 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (table); Byrd v. State, 46 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (table); Byrd v. State, 22 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (table); Byrd v. State, 910 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Byrd v. State, 841 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Byrd v. State, 790 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (table). 2 In February 2015, Byrd petitioned this Court to accept a belated appeal of the trial court’s sanction order of April 13, 2012. This Court granted the belated appeal…
Authorities Cited (12 total)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Davis v. State, 661 So. 2d 1193 (Fla. 1995)
- Raley v. State, 675 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2002)
- Kalapp v. State, 729 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Cash v. State, 779 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Willis v. State, 785 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Stoltzfus v. State, 735 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Mathis v. State, 735 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Yero v. State, 781 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)