green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
19.8 score
“the legality of a sentence is a question of law and is subject to de novo review.”
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bryant v. State
the legality of a sentence is a question of law and is subject to de novo review.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cherilus v. State
Grosso v. State, 2 So.3d 362, 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Florida v. Walford Folkes
See State v. Watson, 909 So.2d 942 , 945 n. 6 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding certiorari not available to permit State to challenge order modifying, rather than revoking, probation following a violation" (citing State v. Blackman, 488 So.2d 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986))); cf. Garcia-Medina v. State, 135 So.3d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“Absent proof, of a violation, the court cannot change an order of probation by enhancing the terms.”); Grosso v. State, 2 So.3d 362, 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (recognizing trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify conditions of probation after expiration of sixty-d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wiley v. State
Standard, of Review “The standard of review for the legality of a criminal sentence is de novo.” State v. Valera, 75 So.3d 330, 331-32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Grosso v. State, 2 So.3d 362, 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Flynn
Grosso v. State, 2 So.3d 362, 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (noting that “[u]nder section 948.30, Florida Statutes, the trial court was required to impose electronic monitoring as a mandatory condition of probation because of [the defendant’s] prior convictions for violations of Chapter 794 and Section 800.04,” but reversing the court’s imposition of electronic monitoring on jurisdictional grounds); Harroll v. State, 960 So.2d 797 -98 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (holding that a “trial court is required to impose mandatory electronic monitoring as a condition of probation” under section 948.30 for…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sultan v. Safeco Surplus Lines Insurance
See, e.g., Grosso v. State, 2 So.3d 362, 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ("As the Senate Staff Analysis below indicates, the legislative intent of section 943.0436 was to enforce sexual predator and offender registration requirements ... ”); Dep’t of Envtl.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Witchard v. State
See, e.g., Grosso v. State, 2 So.3d 362, 365 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that the trial court erred in modifying probation to include electronic monitoring outside the sixty-day period specified in Rule 3.800(c) because the state “was not seeking to modify the probation order to require sexual offender registration, but to add electronic monitoring”); Fields v. State, 968 So.2d 1032, 1033-34 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (finding no double jeopardy violation where the trial court ordered section 948.063 electronic monitoring forty days after the initial modification of probation because the trial c…
Charles ATTARDI, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee
4D07-4271.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec 17, 2008.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and John M. Conway, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant., Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Hyndman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Farmer, Klein, Damoorgian.
Published
We affirm the appellant’s convictions for leaving the scene of an accident with serious injuries and driving without a valid license, but direct the trial court to correct the sentence imposed for driving without a valid license. The sentence of one-year in jail exceeded the maximum sentence of 60 days permitted by statute. §§ 322.03, 322.39(2), and 775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2007). On remand, the trial court shall impose a corrected sentence that does not exceed the statutory maximum.