THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
DIETER SCHMIDT, 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 trial court erred in vacating consecutive ninety-year sentences and resentencing the defendant to consecutive thirty-year sentences without providing a basis for the relief granted.
The defendant pleaded guilty to armed burglary and armed robbery, was initially sentenced to probation, and later violated it, leading to consecutive …
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 Armed Burglary cases and more on FLexlaw
Dieter Schmidt (the “Defendant”) pled guilty to one count of armed burglary and one count of armed robbery, both of which were first degree felonies punishable by life in prison.1 Defendant was sentenced to 364 days in county jail and five years probation, to run concurrently as to each count. Approximately two years later, the Defendant violated his probation and was sentenced to consecutive ninety years in state prison as to each count.2 Following at least seven unsuccessful post-conviction pleadings spanning nearly three decades, in September 2010, the trial court granted the Defendant’s latest 3.800 motion to correct an illegal sentence.3 The State of Florida now seeks review of the trial court’s order vacating the consecutive ninety-year sentences and resentencing the Defendant to consecutive thirty-year sentences as to each count.
Upon review of the transcript of the hearing on the Defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence, we find that the trial court provided no basis whatsoever for vacating the existing sentence and re-sentencing the Defendant and did not set forth any grounds upon which it was granting relief. The consecutive sentences imposed in this case did not exceed the statutory maximum lawful terms for the criminal offenses in question. Accordingly, we reverse.
Reversed.