State v. Wayne
| Decision Date | 22 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 71420,71420 |
| Citation | 531 So.2d 160,13 Fla. L. Weekly 578 |
| Parties | 13 Fla. L. Weekly 578 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Clyde Garland WAYNE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender and Michael L. O'Neill, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Kevin Kitpatrick Carson and Kellie A. Nielan, Asst. Attys. Gen., Daytona Beach, for respondent.
We have for review Wayne v. State, 513 So.2d 689 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), based on express and direct conflict with Brooks v. State, 478 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1985); Hill v. State, 486 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Lynch v. State, 491 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); and Crosby v. State, 487 So.2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
In the proceedings below, the district court held that a
defendant, having already been sentenced once, cannot constitutionally be sentenced a second time for the same offense merely because he has violated the probation appended to the lawful sentence of confinement.
Constitutional double jeopardy prohibits [petitioner] from being sentenced a second time for the same burglary and he must be released as to that charge.
In Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988), however, we expressly disapproved the opinion below and held that when the original sentence is a period of confinement, none of which is suspended, followed by probation, * resentencing to a greater prison term upon violation of probation does not violate double jeopardy or other constitutional provisions. Poore, at 163-164, 165. See Williams v. Wainwright, 650 F.2d 58, 61 (5th Cir.1981); State v. Payne, 404 So.2d 1055 (Fla.1981); Scott v. State, 326 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 836, 97 S.Ct. 104, 50 L.Ed.2d 103 (1976). Accord North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).
Accordingly, we quash the opinion below and remand for proceedings consistent with our views in Poore.
It is so ordered.
* For purposes of convenience, we have termed this a "probationary split sentence."
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dixon v. State, 87-1795
...split sentences." As its basis for accepting review of the district court decisions in Poore and its companion case State v. Wayne, 531 So.2d 160 (Fla.1988) (which apparently did not involve a defendant originally sentenced as a youthful offender), the supreme court cited a number of cases.......
-
Johnson v. State, 89-2264
...defendant has once been sentenced to straight confinement. In Poore, supra, Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989), and State v. Wayne, 531 So.2d 160 (Fla.1988), the supreme court did recognize as valid a sentence of a specific term of confinement followed by a specific term of probati......
-
Cole v. State, 2D14–3404.
...Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.Jan. 21, 2015.Edward L. Cole, pro se.OpinionPER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Wayne, 531 So.2d 160 (Fla.1988) ; Bilyou v. State, 404 So.2d 744 (Fla.1981) ; State v. Segarra, 388 So.2d 1017 (Fla.1980) ; Bizzell v. State, 912 So.2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA......
-
Thomas v. State, 2D16–2236.
...2, 2016.PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045 (Fla.2011) ; Horner v. State, 617 So.2d 311 (Fla.1993) ; State v. Wayne, 531 So.2d 160 (Fla.1988) ; Bilyou v. State, 404 So.2d 744 (Fla.1981) ; State v. Segarra, 388 So.2d 1017 (Fla.1980) ; Thomas v. State, 956 So.2d 1193 (Fl......