Robinson v. StateRobinson v. State
Appellant, Eric Robinson (defendant), has appealed the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Defendant contends that his 40-year sentence for robbery is illegal and should be reduced to a maximum term of 30 years based on his codefendant’s ease of Robinson v. State,
Defendant and his brother, Victor Robinson (codefendant), were charged by information with two counts of robbery for offenses occurring on March 5, 1981. The information specifically alleged that defendant possessed a handgun and that codefendant possessed a long gun during the course of the robberies “contrary to F.S. 812.13(2)(a).” Defendant was adjudicated guilty on May 25, 1983, of two robberies, as first-degree felonies under section 812.13(2)(a). He received two concurrent sentences of 40 years in prison with a three-year mandatory minimum and with the court retaining jurisdiction over one-third of the sentence. Defendant filed two direct appeals, but neither appeal or his subsequent attempts at post-conviction relief raised the legality of the 40-year sentence. See Robinson v. State,
Section 812.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), specifically authorizes punishment for a “term of years not exceeding life imprisonment” where the defendant carries a firearm in the course of committing the robbery. In Alvarez v. State,
A review of this court’s opinion in code-fendant’s case of Robinson v. State,
Defendant claims he will be denied due process if he is not resentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 30 years as was his codefendant brother. However, the statute under which defendant was sentenced lawfully authorizes the punishment he received. Codefendant may have benefitted from a decision of this court, but that decision was in conflict with earlier decisions of this court and of the supreme court. See Mills. Because defendant’s 40-year sentence is legal, we do not find it “manifestly unjust” to refuse to grant him relief similar to that granted his codefendant. Cf. Romero v. State,
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. In Alvarez, as noted in Mills, the court held that life expectancy is irrelevant to analyzing whether any given term of years exceeds life.
. The anomaly in the sentencing statutes between those sentenced to a life felony pursuant to section 775.082(3)(a) for a life felony committed prior to October 1, 1983, where a sentence of years must not exceed 30 years or life imprisonment, and first degree felonies pursuant to section 775.082(3)(b), where a sentence, if authorized by statute, for a term of years not exceeding life imprisonment is lawful, has been discussed in Mills, Green and Crabtree.