Narrative Opinion Summary
In this appellate case, the court addresses the legality of sentencing following a plea agreement. The appellant's sentence for count IV was previously imposed contrary to the plea bargain, prompting an appeal. The court reverses the lower court's decision and remands the case, ordering the sentence on count IV to be vacated and the appellant to be resentenced to a maximum of 15 years, running concurrently with existing 25-year sentences for counts I through III. The court cites Cherry v. State, emphasizing that increasing a lawful sentence is prohibited, and Wilhelm v. State, which allows for the correction of illegal sentences but not the modification of lawful sentences on other counts. Additionally, the court mandates the amendment of the final judgment to correctly reflect the appellant's adjudication of 'attempted' sexual battery instead of sexual battery for counts I through III. The decision is unanimously concurred by Judges Dell, Gunther, and Farmer, ensuring that the appellant benefits from the plea bargain without imposition of a more severe sentence upon remand.
Legal Issues Addressed
Adjudication and Sentence Modificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The final judgment must be amended to reflect the correct adjudication of the charges against the appellant.
Reasoning: The final judgment is to be amended to indicate that the appellant was adjudicated guilty of “attempted” sexual battery instead of sexual battery in counts I through III.
Concurrent Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant is to be resentenced to a 15-year term for count IV, to run concurrently with existing sentences for other counts.
Reasoning: The appellant is to be resentenced to a maximum of 15 years in prison for count IV, which is to run concurrently with the existing 25-year sentences for counts I through III.
Correction of Illegal Sentencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court may correct illegal sentences but cannot modify lawful sentences on other counts, as established by precedent.
Reasoning: Legal precedents cited include Cherry v. State, which prohibits increasing a lawful sentence, and Wilhelm v. State, which allows the correction of illegal sentences but prohibits modifications of lawful sentences on other counts.
Modification of Sentencessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court instructs the lower court to vacate the sentence on count IV and resentence the appellant in accordance with legal precedents governing sentence modifications.
Reasoning: The court reverses and remands the case, instructing the lower court to vacate the previously imposed sentence on count IV.