State v. McKnight, 764 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. McKnight, 764 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Brannon v. State, 791 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
How cited ↗
Cited for
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Terry McKNIGHT, Respondent.
SC94256.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jul 13, 2000.
Published opinion
764 So. 2d 574
2000 WL 963858
Per Curiam.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

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

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

PER CURIAM.

We 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.

McKnight 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]

It is so ordered.

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

ANSTEAD, J., recused.

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).