Stevie Garner v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledMay 6, 2022
Docket2D21-2009
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
STEVIE GARNER,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D21-2009
May 6, 2022
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit
Court for Polk County; Donald G. Jacobsen, Judge.
Daniel J. Tibbitt of Law Offices of Daniel J. Tibbitt, Miami, for
Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P.
Hurley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
KHOUZAM, Judge.
Stevie Garner appeals the order denying his motion to correct
illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure
3.800(a). Because Garner's general sentence was illegal, we reverse
the denial of claim two of his motion. We affirm in all other
respects.
In 1998, Garner was charged with first-degree murder (count
one), burglary with assault or battery (count two), and grand theft
(count three). After the State announced that it would seek the
death penalty, Garner entered into a negotiated plea agreement,
agreeing to plead guilty to all counts in exchange for a sentence of
life in prison on count one and guidelines sentences on counts two
and three. However, the trial court ultimately imposed a general
sentence of life in prison on counts one and two as well as a
concurrent term of five years in prison on count three.
In February 2021, Garner filed a motion to correct illegal
sentence. In claim two of his motion, he argued that the general
sentence on counts one and two was illegal and that he is entitled
to distinct sentences for each individual count. The postconviction
court rejected this claim and denied Garner's motion.
But a general sentence covering multiple counts is an illegal
sentence. See Munoz v. State, 218 So. 3d 459, 459 (Fla. 5th DCA
2017) ("The sentence on all the counts is an illegal general
sentence."); Holmes v. State, 100 So. 3d 281, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA
2
2012) (reversing denial of claim asserting illegal sentence because
"a trial court may not impose a single general sentence to cover
multiple counts"); Brazley v. State, 871 So. 2d 986, 987 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2004) (accepting State's concession that sentence was illegal
due to prohibition on "general sentences for multiple convictions").
The appropriate remedy for an illegal general sentence is "a vacation
of the general sentence and entry of a separate, distinct sentence
for each of the individual counts." Holmes, 100 So. 3d at 283; see
Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.701(d)(12) ("A sentence must be imposed for each
offense.").
Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the order denying claim
two of Garner's rule 3.800(a) motion and remand for the
postconviction court to vacate the original general sentence and
enter separate, distinct sentences for counts one and two. See
Holmes, 100 So. 3d at 283; Brazley, 871 So. 2d at 987.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with
instructions.
LaROSE and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
3