Sterling v. State, 96-632

Decision Date08 November 1996
Docket NumberNo. 96-632,96-632
Citation682 So.2d 694
Parties21 Fla. L. Weekly D2394 James STERLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Michael S. Becker, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and E. Paul Stanley, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

W. SHARP, Judge.

Sterling appeals from his sentence, which was modified by the trial judge's addition of a probationary term, 14 days after the original sentence had been pronounced, and after Sterling had begun to serve the original sentence. We have no alternative in this case except to strike the attempted modification since at the time the probationary term was added, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to increase the original sentence. See Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So.2d 857 (Fla.1973); Padgett v. State, 497 So.2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Cherry v. State, 439 So.2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Gonzalez v. State, 384 So.2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Sterling pled guilty to grand theft and battery, and the state dropped other counts. The agreement provided that Sterling would be sentenced to seven months in the Orange County Jail with credit for 129 days and that he would pay a $100.00 fine, court costs, and a $100.00 public defender lien. The court orally pronounced that sentence. There was nothing in the plea agreement or sentence that mentioned probation.

The state thereafter filed a motion to "clarify" the sentence. A hearing was held, two weeks after the original sentencing, and on the day that Sterling's original sentence should have expired. The state asked the court to include a provision that Sterling have no contact with the victim in the case. The court pointed out that there was no way it could enforce such a no contact provision, since the plea bargain and sentence had contained no term of probation. Over objection of defense counsel, the court offered Sterling two alternatives: withdraw his plea, remain in jail and go to trial, or accept a condition of probation for one year that he have no contact with the victim. Faced with this Hobson's choice, Sterling elected probation.

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) allows for a modification of a legal sentence. However, a trial judge may not, pursuant to powers to modify, increase the original sentence given. Troupe; Committee Notes to 1980 Amendment of Rule 3.800. Imposition of hours of community service at the end of a prison term constitutes an increase in a defendant's sentence. Tessier v. Moe, 485 So.2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Delemos v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 28, 2007
    ...because that rule allows the trial court discretion to give the defendant a more favorable incarcerative sentence. See Sterling v. State, 682 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The only circumstance in which it may add a condition that might be deemed an increase in the sentence is when it adds......
  • Pate v. State, 2D05-1086.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 24, 2005
    ...Rodriguez v. State, 899 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Johnson v. State, 881 So.2d 706, 707 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Sterling v. State, 682 So.2d 694, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Thomas v. State, 648 So.2d 298, 301 (Fla. 5th DCA Accordingly, the order of January 10, 2005, denying Pate's motion ......
  • Grage v. State, 96-3312
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 13, 1998
    ...Procedure 9.140(c), the trial court had no jurisdiction to increase the sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(a); Sterling v. State, 682 So.2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (trial court may not increase defendant's legal sentence after sentence is pronounced). Even if the trial court had jurisdicti......
  • Linnon v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 16, 2008
    ...to modify a sentence under rule 3.800(c) does not authorize a trial court to increase a defendant's sentence. See Sterling v. State, 682 So.2d 694, 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).1 D. Double Mr. Linnon next argues that the prohibition against double jeopardy precluded the trial court from adding t......
  • 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