Title: Tommy Terry v. State of Florida
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SC95-149
State: Florida
Issuer: Florida Supreme Court
Date: July 13, 2000

Supreme 
Court 
of 
Florida
 
____________
No. SC95149
____________
TOMMY TERRY,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Respondent.
[July 13, 2000]
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Terry v. State, 727 So. 2d 1124 (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 Maddox v. State, 25 Fla. L. Weekly S367 (Fla. May 11, 2000), we
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-
recently concluded that a sentence that exceeds the maximum sentence allowed by
statute constitutes a fundamental sentencing error that can be raised on direct
appeal during the window period.  25 Fla. L. Weekly at S370.1  Terry claims that
his sentence of ten years' probation is illegal because it exceeds the statutory
maximum sentence of five years permitted for a third-degree felony.  See §
775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1997); see also State v. Summers, 642 So. 2d 742 (Fla.
1994) (stating that probationary terms are subject to a statutory maximum).  Under
our opinion in Maddox, the district court should have corrected this error as
fundamental error even though it was not preserved for review.
For the reasons expressed in this opinion, 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.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION, AND
IF FILED, DETERMINED.
-3-
Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal - 
Direct Conflict
Fifth District - Case No. 5D98-1488 
(Brevard County)
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Stephanie H. Park and Barbara C. Davis,
Assistant Public Defenders, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Petitioner
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Belle B. Schumann and Wesley
Heidt, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, Florida,
for Respondent