Scantling v. State, 96-2035
| Decision Date | 17 June 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-2035,96-2035 |
| Citation | 704 So.2d 565 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D1491 Teayoir SCANTLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
The appellant contends that the sentence imposed for an offense which he committed while on control release may not be made consecutive to the sentence to be served in connection with the violation of control release. Although Currelly v. State, 678 So.2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), provides support for this contention, we recede from this aspect of Currelly. The present case is thus being considered en banc by the court's criminal division pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.331(b).
The appellant was imprisoned under a sentence for an earlier offense, and after serving a portion of that term he was placed on control release and then committed another offense. In imposing the present sentence for this offense the court indicated that this sentence would be consecutive to "the sentence he is currently serving." However, the appellant notes that the sentencing papers indicate that the present sentence would be consecutive to any sentence received for violation of control release, and that this is precluded by Currelly under the theory that the present sentence would be consecutive to an undetermined future sentence. See also Lyons v. State, 672 So.2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). But we disagree with the apparent assumption in Currelly and Lyons that a violation of control release will result in a new and undetermined sentence to be imposed in the future. An inmate on control release has already been sentenced for the earlier offense, and pursuant to section 947.141(4), Florida Statutes, an inmate violating control release may be returned to prison for the continued service of that sentence. Because this is not a new sentence, and the inmate is instead imprisoned under a sentence which has previously been determined and imposed, a separate consecutive sentence for another offense committed while on control release is not thereby precluded. We recede from Currelly in this regard, and acknowledge conflict with Lyons. The present case is therefore affirmed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Childers v. State
...DCA 1998) (en banc decision released by administrative division without antecedent publication of panel decision); Scantling v. State, 704 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (en banc decision released by criminal division without antecedent publication of panel decision), approved by 711 So.2d 5......
-
Childers v. State
...DCA 1998) (en banc decision released by administrative division without antecedent publication of panel decision); Scantling v. State, 704 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (en banc decision released by criminal division without antecedent publication of panel decision), approved by 711 So.2d 5......
-
Scantling v. State
...Edward C. Hill, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent. WELLS, Justice. We have for review Scantling v. State, 704 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (en banc), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Lyons v. State, 672 So.2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We ......
-
Mincey v. State, 97-3028
...547, 26 So. 713 (1899); however, we note that the first district disagrees with Lyons and has certified conflict. Scantling v. State, 704 So.2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). Unlike Lyons, this is not a direct appeal, but rather a motion filed pursuant to rule 3.800, the only avenue of relief ope......