 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Butler v. State1/30/2003
We have for review a decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal on the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance:
MAY A TRIAL COURT SENTENCE A DEFENDANT TO A TERM IN EXCESS OF THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM FOR AN OFFENSE COMMITTED AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1998, WHERE THE LOWEST PERMISSIBLE SENTENCE UNDER THE CODE EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM? Butler v. State, 774 So. 2d 925, 927 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We answer the certified question in the affirmative.
Petitioner Winyatta Butler pled guilty to possession of cocaine, possession of cannabis, driving with a suspended license, resisting arrest without violence, and driving under the influence . He was sentenced to 75.6 months of incarceration. The petitioner filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, alleging that his sentence of 75.6 months exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for the third-degree felony of cocaine possession. The trial court denied the petitioner's rule 3.850 motion, ruling that although the sentence imposed for possession of cocaine exceeded the statutory maximum, the sentence of 75.6 months was the lowest permissible sentence under the guidelines and therefore was legal.
On appeal, the district court affirmed the trial court's denial of the petitioner's rule 3.850 motion and agreed that the sentence was legally based on this Court's statement in Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89, 101 n.9 (Fla. 2000), that "for those defendants who committed their crimes after October 1, 1998, section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes (1999), provides that `if the lowest permissible sentence under the code exceeds the statutory maximum sentence as provided in s. 775.082, the sentence required by the code must be imposed.'" The district court then recognized potential statutory conflict between two provisions of the Criminal Punishment Code: (1) section 921.002(1)(g), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), which does not authorize a court to impose a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum; and (2) section 921.0024(2), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), which directs that " f the lowest permissible sentence under the [Criminal Punishment Code] exceeds the statutory maximum sentence . . . , the sentence required by the code must be imposed." Due to this potential conflict, the district court certified the question that is now before this Court.
We agree with the district court that the petitioner's sentence is legal, and we therefore uphold the district court's affirmance of the denial of the petitioner's rule 3.850 motion. We further conclude that there is no conflict between the statutes and therefore answer the certified question in the affirmative. Because the Legislature does not intend to enact purposeless or useless laws, see Sharer v. Hotel Corp. of America, 144 So. 2d 813, 817 (Fla. 1962), the primary rule of statutory interpretation is to harmonize related statutes so that each is given effect. See Carawan v. State, 515 So. 2d 161, 168 (Fla. 1987). The two provisions of the Criminal Punishment Code can be harmonized.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.704(d)(25) states in pertinent part:
The permissible range for sentencing must be the lowest permissible sentence up to and including the statutory maximum, as defined in section 775.082, for the primary offense and any additional offenses before the court for sentencing. The sentencing court may impose such sentences concurrently or consecutively. However, any sentence to state prison must exceed 1 year. If the lowest permissible sentence under the Code exceeds the statutory maximum sentence as provided in section 775.082, the sentence re
Page 1 2 Florida DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|