Smith v. State
| Decision Date | 09 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-02810,89-02810 |
| Citation | 584 So.2d 154 |
| Parties | Steven SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 584 So.2d 154, 16 Fla. L. Week. D2120 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Eric Gruman, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Angelica D. Zayas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for appellee.
The defendant, Steven Smith, contends the trial court erred in imposing prison sentences followed by probation which, when combined, exceed statutory maximums. We agree.
This appeal involves two cases. In circuit court case number 89-344, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of burglary of a dwelling and two counts of grand theft, which occurred on September 16, 1988. He was sentenced to four and one-half years in prison followed by five years' probation on each count, concurrent. The burglary counts are second degree felonies, section 810.02(3), Florida Statutes (1987), and the sentence imposed on these burglary counts falls within the statutory maximum incarceration period of fifteen years. Arena v. State, 382 So.2d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). However, the two grand theft counts are third degree felonies, section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1987), as amended by Supp. (1988), which have a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. Atkinson v. State, 457 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
The law is clear that when a defendant is sentenced to a split sentence consisting of incarceration and probation, as provided by statute, the combined sanction cannot exceed the maximum period of incarceration provided by law. State v. Holmes, 360 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla.1978). See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701, comm. note (d)(12)(1987) 1. Thus, the probationary periods of the additional four and one-half years on each grand theft count exceed the statutory maximum incarceration periods for these felonies. Sec. 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1987). Glass v. State, 556 So.2d 465 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), approved 574 So.2d 1099 (Fla.1991).
In circuit court case number 89-346, the defendant pled guilty to burglary, grand theft, and fraudulent use of a credit card, occurring on February 2 and 4, 1989. The court properly found the defendant to be a habitual felon. It then sentenced him to ten years imprisonment followed by five years probation on each count. The statutory maximum sentence for a burglary count, a second degree felony, is 30 years when a defendant is habitualized. Sec. 775.084(4)(a)2., Fla.Stat. (1987). Accordingly, the 10/5 split sentence was proper as to the burglary conviction. Denton v. State, 382 So.2d 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). However, we agree with the defendant that the 10/5 split sentence on the grand theft and fraudulent use of a credit card counts, both third degree felonies, exceed the maximum ten years' state prison term for a habitualized defendant permitted under section 775.084(4)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1989). Hoefert v. State, 509 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), disapproved on other grounds, Parker v. State, 546 So.2d 727 (Fla.1989).
We affirm all of the defendant's convictions. We vacate his sentences for grand theft in circuit court case number 86-344 and his sentences for grand theft and the fraudulent use of a credit card in circuit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regueiro v. State
...total term, which is the probationary term and the incarcerative term combined. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12); see also Smith v. State, 584 So.2d 154 (Fla.2d DCA 1991). In relevant part, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission Notes for the 1988 amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedur......
-
Walker v. State
...law. Arnett v. State, 598 So.2d 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Roache v. State, 547 So.2d 706, 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Smith v. State, 584 So.2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Second, a period of probation "shall commence immediately upon the release of the defendant from incarceration." Sec. 948.01(8)......
-
Howe v. State, 90-03067
...sentence consisting of incarceration and probation cannot exceed the maximum period of incarceration provided by law. Smith v. State, 584 So.2d 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Thus Howe's forty-two-year split sentence is illegal. Howe did not waive this error by failing to object below. See Forshee......
-
Rioux v. State, Case No. 2D17-4042
...as provided by statute, the combined sanction cannot exceed the maximum period of incarceration provided by law." Smith v. State, 584 So. 2d 154, 154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (citing State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380, 383 (Fla. 1978)). The sentences imposed on counts five and six of fifteen years' ......