Case Title: Kenneth Taylor v. State of Florida

Citation: 

Docket Number: SC96-671

State: florida

Court: Florida Supreme Court

Date: 2000-07-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC96671
____________
KENNETH TAYLOR,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[July 13, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Taylor v. State, 739 So. 2d 1277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), a 
decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal citing as controlling authority its
opinion in Maddox v. State, 708 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in
part, disapproved in part, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S367 (Fla. May 11, 2000).  We have
jurisdiction.  See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Jollie v. State, 405 So. 2d 418, 420
(Fla. 1981).  
In our recent opinion in Maddox v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S367 (Fla. May
1In Maddox, we addressed the question of whether unpreserved sentencing errors should be
corrected in appeals filed in the window period between the effective date of section 924.051, Florida
Statutes (Supp. 1996), and our recent amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) in
Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140, & 9.600, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S530 (Fla. Nov. 12, 1999), reh'g granted, 25
Fla. L. Weekly S37 (Fla. Jan. 13, 2000).  The appeal in this case falls within the window period discussed
in Maddox. 
-2-
11, 2000), we held that during the window period, the defendant can raise as
fundamental error an unpreserved sentencing error that results in the defendant
serving a sentence longer than the statutory maximum for the offense.1  Taylor
claims that the sentence he received after violating his probation exceeds the
statutory maximum of five years for a third-degree felony, see section 775.082, 
because the trial court failed to give him credit for time he had previously served on
probation.  Because the parties have not adequately briefed the merits of this issue,
we remand for the Fifth District to determine whether the failure to credit Taylor
with the time he previously served on probation resulted in a sentence that
exceeded the statutory maximum for the offense, which would constitute
fundamental error under our opinion in Maddox.  Therefore, we quash the decision
below and remand for proceedings consistent with our opinion in Maddox.
It is so ordered. 
WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, ANSTEAD, PARIENTE, LEWIS and
QUINCE, JJ., concur.
-3-
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Direct Conflict
Fifth District - Case No. 5D98-2215 
(Volusia County)
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Jane C. Almy-Loewinger, Assistant Public
Defender, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Kellie A. Nielan, and Wesley Heidt,
Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Respondent