Alamo v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Alamo v. State

177 So. 3d 99, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15736, 2015 WL 6393713

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 2015

DocketNo. 5D15-3116

StatusPublished

This text of 177 So. 3d 99 (Alamo v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alamo v. State, 177 So. 3d 99, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15736, 2015 WL 6393713 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Alamo, III (“Alamo”), challenges the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, We affirm, but write to address one issue.

Alamo was convicted of a third-degree felony. He argues that his sentence of six months in the county jail, followed by 60 months of probation is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum punishment of five years for third-degree felonies. See § 775.082(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014) (effective October 1, 2014). In summarily denying Alamo’s motion, the. lower court explained in its order that Alamo was sentenced to 60 months of probation with a special condition of probation that Alamo serve the first six months in the county jail.

Section 948.03(2), Florida Statutes (2014), permits a court, as a special condition of probation, to impose a period of incarceration not to exceed 364 days. Accordingly, Alamo’s sentence is lawful. However, the original judgment and sentence entered is not a model of clarity and understandably caused Alamo concern. The judgment should be clarified to specifically state that Alamo was placed on probation for 60 months with a special condition of his probation that he serve the first six months of his probation in the county jail. We therefore remand and direct the trial court to correct the judgment and sentence as described above. Alamo need not be present when this change is made.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

BERGER, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Samuel Alamo, III (“Alamo”), challenges the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence, We affirm, but write to address one issue.

Alamo was convicted of a third-degree felony. He argues that his sentence of six months in the county jail, followed by 60 months of probation is illegal because it exceeds the statutory maximum punishment of five years for third-degree felonies. See § 775.082(3)(e), Fla. Stat. (2014) (effective October 1, 2014). In summarily denying Alamo’s motion, the. lower court explained in its order that Alamo was sentenced to 60 months of probation with a special condition of probation that Alamo serve the first six months in the county jail.

Section 948.03(2), Florida Statutes (2014), permits a court, as a special condition of probation, to impose a period of incarceration not to exceed 364 days. Accordingly, Alamo’s sentence is lawful. However, the original judgment and sentence entered is not a model of clarity and understandably caused Alamo concern. The judgment should be clarified to specifically state that Alamo was placed on probation for 60 months with a special condition of his probation that he serve the first six months of his probation in the county jail. We therefore remand and direct the trial court to correct the judgment and sentence as described above. Alamo need not be present when this change is made.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

BERGER, LAMBERT, and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 So. 3d 99, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 15736, 2015 WL 6393713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alamo-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.