Case ID: so2d_527/html/0911-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tyrone SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 86-263.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    June 28, 1988.
    Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and N. Joseph Durant, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Yvette Rhodes Prescott, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
    Before HUBBART, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence for second-degree grand theft as proscribed by Section 812.014(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1985). The defendant Tyrone Scott’s sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing a sentence in this case of fifteen years imprisonment because the sentence exceeds the maximum penalty on the crime for which the defendant was convicted; the state has filed a confession of error on this point.

Second-degree grand theft, as proscribed by the above statute, is a third-degree felony, § 812.014(2)(b), Fla.Stat. (1985), which, in turn, is punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment. § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1985). It therefore follows that the sentence of fifteen years imprisonment under review must be reversed; moreover, this result is not changed by the fact that the sentencing guidelines presumptively calls for a maximum sentence of seventeen years imprisonment because a guidelines sentence may not, in any event, exceed the maximum sentence provided by statute for that offense. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(10).

The final judgment of conviction under review is affirmed; the sentence under review is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for resentencing.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.