Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

764 So. 2d 574

Docket No. SC94256.

State v. McKnight

STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Terry McKNIGHT, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided July 13, 2000.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 2000-07-13

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2002

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“rejecting State's argument that a fundamental sentencing error should remain uncorrected simply because the erroneous sentence is to be served concurrently with other sentences that are not being challenged”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 786 So. 2d 12 - Seccia v. State

Relies on 760 So. 2d 89 - Maddox v. State · 760 So. 2d 114 - Leonard v. State · 708 So. 2d 617 - Maddox v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2000-07-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Tallahassee Bureau Chief, Criminal Appeals, and Sherri Tolar Rollison, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

¶2Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnes, Assistant Public Defender, Second Judicial Circuit, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

¶3PER CURIAM.

¶4We have for review McKnight v. State, 759 So.2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), a decision of the First District Court of Appeal certifying conflict with the decision of the Fifth District in Maddox v. State, 708 So.2d 617 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), approved in part, disapproved in part, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.

¶5McKnight received a ten-year habitual offender sentence for possession of cocaine. A habitual offender sentence for possession of cocaine is expressly prohibited by statute and the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum non-habitual offender sentence permitted for the offense. See McKnight, 759 So.2d at 686. For the reasons expressed in our opinion in Maddox, we approve the decision of the First District that this constitutes fundamental error correctable during the window period discussed in Maddox.[1]

¶6It is so ordered.

¶7WELLS, C.J., and SHAW, HARDING, PARIENTE, LEWIS and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

¶8ANSTEAD, J., recused.

NOTES

¶9[1] See also Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114, 116 (Fla.2000) (rejecting State's argument that a fundamental sentencing error should remain uncorrected simply because the erroneous sentence is to be served concurrently with other sentences that are not being challenged).

/764/so2d/574 · .json · Public domain