Sanchez v. State, 88-195
| Citation | 538 So.2d 923,14 Fla. L. Weekly 352 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-195,88-195 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 352 Felix SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Barbara L. Condon, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
After the defendant Felix Sanchez was tried by jury and found guilty of burglary and dealing in stolen property, he was sentenced to "two years (community control) on each count and followed by three years probation on each count to run consecutive, one to the other." The defendant's recommended guidelines sentence was community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration.
On appeal, the defendant contends that his sentence is improper on three grounds. First, the defendant argues that since his recommended guidelines sentence was community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration, the imposition of community control and probation constitutes a departure sentence which is improper in the absence of written reasons. This argument is without merit. See Hankey v. State, 529 So.2d 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(13) committee note.
The defendant also contends that the length of community control is restricted to two years and therefore the trial court was without authority to impose consecutive terms of community control. We conclude that section 948.01(5), Florida Statutes (1987) 1 does not limit the duration of community control to a single two year period when the defendant is sentenced at the same sentencing hearing for multiple offenses but rather, two years is the maximum permissible period of community control for any one offense. See Mick v. State, 506 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Finally, the defendant contends that the sentence is flawed because it requires him to first serve community control for two years to be followed by three years probation and then be recalled to serve another two year term of community control followed by three years probation. The defendant contends that this is similar to the interrupted sentence imposed and rejected in Calhoun v. State, 522 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
In Calhoun, the defendant was convicted and sentenced in two cases involving burglary. His recommended guidelines sentence was seven to nine years imprisonment. The trial judge imposed two consecutive split sentences, that is, five years incarceration and two years probation in one case, followed by a consecutive split sentence of four years and two years probation in the second case. The second district pointed out that both sentences exceeded the statutory maximum for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ogden v. State, 92-19
...only authorized when separate crimes had been committed. See also State v. Arnold, 550 So.2d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Sanchez v. State, 538 So.2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Mick v. State, 506 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). However, appellant was convicted of only one offense. We find that th......
-
State v. Arnold
...are authorized for multiple offenses. However, consecutive sentences must follow each other without interruption. Sanchez v. State, 538 So.2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Calhoun v. State, 522 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Mick v. State, 506 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA The State's contention that......
-
Latham v. State, 91-2045
...sentence. Washington v. State, 564 So.2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Lanier v. State, 504 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Sanchez v. State, 538 So.2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). See also Porter v. State, 585 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA The record in this case suggests that, as to the sentence imposed f......
-
Turner v. State, 89-920
...See Gill v. State, 550 So.2d 72 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989); Calhoun v. State, 522 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); cf. Sanchez v. State, 538 So.2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)(interrupted sentence involving community control and probation is likewise improper). Furthermore, the nonincarcerative portion o......