Rouse v. State, No. 93-3287

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtJOANOS
Citation643 So.2d 1159
Parties19 Fla. L. Weekly D2152 George ROUSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Decision Date06 October 1994
Docket NumberNo. 93-3287

Page 1159

643 So.2d 1159
19 Fla. L. Weekly D2152
George ROUSE, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 93-3287.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
Oct. 6, 1994.

George Rouse, appellant, pro se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard Parker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

JOANOS, Judge.

Appellant, George Rouse, appeals an order denying his second motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). In his motion, appellant alleged the trial court failed to award credit for previous prison time appellant served against the violation of probation sentences imposed for related offenses. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

The record reflects that on June 17, 1987, a seven-count information was filed in circuit court case numbers 87-882 through 87-888, charging appellant with six counts of burglary of a structure and one count of possession of burglary tools. On July 2, 1987, an information was filed in circuit court case numbers 87-902 and 87-903, charging appellant

Page 1160

with two counts of burglary of a structure. On August 6, 1987, appellant signed two separate Plea, Waiver and Consent forms, in which he pled nolo contendere to nine counts of burglary of a structure and one count of possession of burglary tools.

On September 15, 1987, appellant was sentenced to concurrent five-year sentences as to counts one and two in case number 87-882, and to concurrent sentences as to counts one and two in case number 87-902, with the sentences in the respective cases to run concurrently with each other. Appellant was placed on probation for count three in case number 87-882, the probation to be served consecutively to the five-year sentences, and was placed on probation for counts four through seven, this probation to be served consecutively to the count three probation. 1 Appellant was released from incarceration in 1988, and charged with another burglary. He pled nolo contendere to the 1988 charge, and the trial court imposed a ten-year habitual offender sentence in accordance with a plea agreement. Appellant's probation was revoked, and two five-year sentences were imposed, the sentences to run consecutively to the ten-year habitual offender sentence and to each other. The imposition of consecutive sentences resulted in a total sentence of twenty years. The sentencing documents indicate that appellant was allowed 271 days of credit for jail...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Vanderblomen v. State, No. 97-2557
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 24, 1998
    ...Carver v. State, 653 So.2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stevens v. State, 651 So.2d 1298, 1299-1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Handford v. State, 637 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas......
  • State v. Mancino, No. 90516
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 11, 1998
    ...); Carver v. State, 653 So.2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stevens v. State, 651 So.2d 1298, 1299-1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Handford v. State, 637 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Tho......
  • Greene v. State, No. 96-729
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 10, 1997
    ...for the three and one-half years previously served in prison on these charges. Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993); Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We do not agree, however, that the trial judge cannot impose a two-cell bump-up for the violation of probation if on r......
  • Barfield v. State, No. 95-1096
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 8, 1996
    ...mechanism for raising appellant's challenge according to the law at the time at which he filed his motion. See Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Since appellant's filing of a 3.800 motion, however, the supreme court has clarified the distinctions between an "illegal senten......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Vanderblomen v. State, No. 97-2557
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • March 24, 1998
    ...Carver v. State, 653 So.2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stevens v. State, 651 So.2d 1298, 1299-1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Handford v. State, 637 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Thomas......
  • State v. Mancino, No. 90516
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 11, 1998
    ...); Carver v. State, 653 So.2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Stevens v. State, 651 So.2d 1298, 1299-1300 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Handford v. State, 637 So.2d 958 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Thomas v. State, 634 So.2d 175, 177 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Tho......
  • Greene v. State, No. 96-729
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 10, 1997
    ...for the three and one-half years previously served in prison on these charges. Tripp v. State, 622 So.2d 941 (Fla.1993); Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We do not agree, however, that the trial judge cannot impose a two-cell bump-up for the violation of probation if on r......
  • Barfield v. State, No. 95-1096
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 8, 1996
    ...mechanism for raising appellant's challenge according to the law at the time at which he filed his motion. See Rouse v. State, 643 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Since appellant's filing of a 3.800 motion, however, the supreme court has clarified the distinctions between an "illegal senten......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT