Lee v. StateLee v. State
Jontal Ramon Lee appeals an order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The State properly concedes that defendant-appellant Lee is entitled to relief with respect to his sentence on count five, attempted second degree murder with a firearm. Because the offense was reclassified on account of the use of a firearm, it is a felony of the first degree. See
Defendant also challenges the departure sentences he has received. He argues that under the United States Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), the jury must decide the factual basis for the departure reasons. That is not so. The holding of Apprendi is, “Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348.
Defendant‘s seventy-year sentences on counts two, three, and seven are within the legal maximum. After reduction of sentence
In sum, the rule in Apprendi does not apply to a sentencing departure order.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for reduction of sentence on count five.