Pryor v. State, s. 97-1726
| Decision Date | 21 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | 97-1139,Nos. 97-1726,s. 97-1726 |
| Citation | 704 So.2d 217 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D282 Charles PRYOR, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Lisa Walsh, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, and Douglas Melamed, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, JORGENSON and GODERICH, JJ.
Corrected Opinion
We affirm.
Charles Pryor appeals the sentence imposed, in 1997, following Pryor's violation of probation in case 89-8866. He claims that the sentence imposed in 1992 for violating community control on case 89-8866 of six years followed by ten years probation was illegal, as the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for a youthful offender. Basically, Pryor alleges that because the ten-year probation period was improperly imposed in 1992, violation of that probation in 1997 was impossible, making the 1997 sentence illegal.
In 1989, Pryor was sentenced as a youthful offender in case 89-8866 to four years in prison followed by one year community control. He violated his community control and, at revocation proceedings in 1992, was sentenced to six years in prison followed by ten years probation. He was credited with time already served while incarcerated, 671 days. This sentence was to run concurrent with the sentence in case 91-12743, a substantive violation of probation/community control, in which Pryor was ordered to serve ten years in prison followed by ten years probation. In 1997, Pryor was found to have violated probation; at revocation proceedings, he was sentenced to prison for six years on case 89-8866 and, on case 91-12743, to 15 years on count one, 15 years (consecutive) on count two and 15 years (concurrent) on the remaining counts.
Pryor's appeal is barred, as it was not properly preserved for review and does not show fundamental error on the part of the sentencing court. See § 924.051(3), Fla Stat. (Supp.1996); Callins v. State, 698 So.2d 883 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), citing Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985). Pryor did not object to the allegedly improper sentence below nor did he timely raise his objection on appeal. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996); Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b).
Even if it had been properly preserved for review, Pryor's position is without merit. Regarding his 1992 sentencing, Pryor is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordan v. State
...an unpreserved sentencing error which would constitute fundamental error. See § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (Supp.1996); Pryor v. State, 704 So.2d 217, 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 289, 289-90 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Stone v. State, 688 So.2d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA), review d......
-
Mizell v. State, 97-3638
...doing so, we respectfully decline, at least in this case, to involve ourselves in this fratricidal warfare. But see, Pryor v. State, 704 So.2d 217, 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)("appeal ... barred, as it was not properly preserved for review and does not show fundamental It is apparent that, even ......
-
Mora v. State
...probation violation hearing or the ultimate sentence imposed. See, e.g., Carratelli v. State, 961 So.2d 312 (Fla.2007); Pryor v. State, 704 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (defendant's appeal is barred, as it was not properly preserved for review and does not show fundamental error on the part......
-
Torres v. State, 97-3054
...issue for appellate review. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (1997); Speights v. State, 711 So.2d 167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Pryor v. State, 704 So.2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Middleton v. State, 689 So.2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). However, our affirmance is without prejudice to the defendant to se......