Bruggeman v. State, No. 96-01669
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | FULMER; THREADGILL |
| Citation | 681 So.2d 822 |
| Parties | 21 Fla. L. Weekly D2215 Gary BRUGGEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 11 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-01669 |
Page 822
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Second District.
FULMER, Judge.
Gary Bruggeman appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm.
Bruggeman entered a plea of no contest to a second degree felony and was placed on probation for a period of fifteen years. As a result of violating his probation, he was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. In his motion, Bruggeman contends that his fifteen-year prison sentence, when combined with the time he previously spent under probation supervision, exceeds the statutory maximum and is, therefore, illegal. By this contention, Bruggeman essentially requests that he be given credit against his prison term for the time he spent under probation supervision.
The trial court correctly denied Bruggeman's motion because such credit is specifically prohibited by statute. Section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that, upon revocation of probation, the trial court shall adjudge the probationer guilty of the offense charged and proven or admitted, unless there has been a previous adjudication of guilt, and impose any sentence that it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer on probation. The maximum sentence that may be imposed for a second degree felony is fifteen years incarceration. Section 948.06(2) provides that no part of the time the defendant is on probation shall be considered as any part of the time that the probationer shall be sentenced to serve. Thus, Bruggeman's sentence meets but does not exceed the statutory maximum and is, therefore, a legal sentence.
We recognize that Bruggeman has already been under the legal constraint of probation for approximately three years and now faces an additional fifteen years, which subjects him to a period of legal constraint in excess of the statutory maximum penalty. However, probation is not a sentence. As we previously recognized in Summers v. State, 625 So.2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), aff'd, 642
Page 823
So.2d 742 (Fla.1994), a defendant could serve almost double the statutory maximum time under legal constraint by being placed on probation for the statutory maximum time and, upon revocation of probation, being sentenced to the maximum period of incarceration. This result does not occur in a situation where a...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connor v. State, No. 5D05-3994.
...1017 (Fla.1980);3 and revoke the defendant's probation and sentence him or her to the maximum period in prison, see Bruggeman v. State, 681 So.2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA It logically follows that when restitution, which is a mandatory part of sentencing that renders a sentence incomplete unless it......
-
Bruggeman v. State
...1068 689 So.2d 1068 Gary Bruggeman v. State NO. 89,361 Supreme Court of Florida. Feb 17, 1997 Appeal From: 2d DCA, 681 So.2d 822 Disposition: Cause...
-
Robinson v. State, No. 96-01166
...he served on community control. In fact, the appellant is not entitled to such credit. § 948.06, Fla. Stat. (1993); Bruggeman v. State, 681 So.2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, upon remand, the trial court should be aware that in considering the length of appellant's sentence, the cou......
-
Connor v. State, 5D05-3994.
...1017 (Fla.1980);3 and revoke the defendant's probation and sentence him or her to the maximum period in prison, see Bruggeman v. State, 681 So.2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA It logically follows that when restitution, which is a mandatory part of sentencing that renders a sentence incomplete unless it......
-
Bruggeman v. State
...1068 689 So.2d 1068 Gary Bruggeman v. State NO. 89,361 Supreme Court of Florida. Feb 17, 1997 Appeal From: 2d DCA, 681 So.2d 822 Disposition: Cause...
-
Robinson v. State, 96-01166
...he served on community control. In fact, the appellant is not entitled to such credit. § 948.06, Fla. Stat. (1993); Bruggeman v. State, 681 So.2d 822 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Accordingly, upon remand, the trial court should be aware that in considering the length of appellant's sentence, the cou......