Augustyn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Augustyn v. State

812 So. 2d 546, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3932, 2002 WL 460852

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 2002

DocketNo. 3D01-2704

StatusPublished

This text of 812 So. 2d 546 (Augustyn 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

Augustyn v. State, 812 So. 2d 546, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3932, 2002 WL 460852 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Contrary to the appellant’s argument advanced on appeal, the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress his oral incriminating statements where such statements were made during a consensual encounter with the police and not during the course of a custodial interrogation. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Caso v. State, 624 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla.1988); Ramsey v. State, 731 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The appellant, however, is correct (as the state appropriately concedes) that his sentence of 42 months imprisonment followed by 5 years probation for the third degree felony of forgery must be reversed where it exceeds the five year statutory maximum. See Folsom v. State, 638 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (defendant’s period of incarceration plus probation may not exceed the five year maximum for a third degree felony). Accordingly, we vacate the appellant’s sentence on this charge and remand for resen-tencing.

Affirmed in part, remanded in part with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Contrary to the appellant’s argument advanced on appeal, the trial court properly denied his motion to suppress his oral incriminating statements where such statements were made during a consensual encounter with the police and not during the course of a custodial interrogation. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); Caso v. State, 624 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla.1988); Ramsey v. State, 731 So.2d 79, 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The appellant, however, is correct (as the state appropriately concedes) that his sentence of 42 months imprisonment followed by 5 years probation for the third degree felony of forgery must be reversed where it exceeds the five year statutory maximum. See Folsom v. State, 638 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (defendant’s period of incarceration plus probation may not exceed the five year maximum for a third degree felony). Accordingly, we vacate the appellant’s sentence on this charge and remand for resen-tencing.

Affirmed in part, remanded in part with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

812 So. 2d 546, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 3932, 2002 WL 460852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/augustyn-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack