CLERMEAU DOL, 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.
The court held that the defendant's claim regarding the factual basis for firearm possession was time-barred and that his sentences did not exceed the legal maximum.
The defendant pleaded guilty in 1998 to six circuit court cases, receiving a forty-year sentence with mandatory minimums. He later filed a motion for …
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 Legal Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Clermeau Dol appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. We affirm.
Defendant-appellant Dol entered into a plea bargain in 1998 covering six circuit court cases.* The agreement was for a forty-year sentence with six consecutive three-year mandatory minimum sentences.
By this third motion for postconviction relief, the defendant maintains that there is no factual basis to support the proposition that he personally possessed a firearm during the commission of these crimes. He argues that the mandatory minimum sentences must be vacated. It is not entirely clear whether the defendant maintains that he did not, in fact, personally possess a firearm during these crimes, or whether he is simply claiming that an insufficient showing of a factual basis was placed on the record.
This claim raises factual issues which must be brought by a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and is subject to the two-year time limitation contained in that rule. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.850(b); State v. Mancino, 705 So. 2d 1379, 1381 (Fla.1998). This claim is time-barred.
The defendant also maintains that his sentences on certain counts exceed the legal maximum. The defendant is incorrect. The defendant’s first degree felonies were punishable by life imprisonment. See § 810.02(2), Fla. Stat. (1997). Further, even if that were not so, the defendant’s scoresheet for the combined cases included the life sentence. See id. § 921.0014(2). Under that version of the guidelines, the court may exceed Florida legal maximum if the guidelines exceed the legal maximum. See id.
Affirmed.
*
These were circuit court case numbers 97-17349, 97-17934, 97-17935, 97-17773, 97-17584, and 98-2046.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chestnut v. State, 932 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…viction DNA testing pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.853. By previous order, following this court’s remand, the trial court issued an order permitting Chestnut to file a renewed rule 3.853 motion within sixty days. Chestnut v. State, 900 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Chesnut moved for an extension of that deadline. The trial court denied the extension request as moot, reasoning that it was untimely. We find that the motion for extension was timely, having been filed before the sixty-day de…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mancino, 705 So. 2d 1379 (Fla. 1998)