Beal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beal v. State

713 So. 2d 1131, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9700, 1998 WL 429127

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 31, 1998

DocketNo. 97-2281

StatusPublished

This text of 713 So. 2d 1131 (Beal 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

Beal v. State, 713 So. 2d 1131, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9700, 1998 WL 429127 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Beal (defendant) appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court after he was found guilty of violating the terms of his probation. We affirm the trial court’s finding that defendant violated the terms of his probation because the instant record demonstrates that defendant willfully refused to comply with his obligation to pay restitution. However, we must reverse the 6-year prison sentence which was imposed on defendant’s scheme to defraud conviction¹ because, upon violation of his probation, defendant was subject to receiving a sentence up to the length of his original suspended sentence of 4.5 years’ imprisonment. See Wallace v. State, 618 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, on remand, the trial court may sentence defendant to a term of up to 4.5 years’ imprisonment on this conviction.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.

GRIFFIN, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Beal (defendant) appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court after he was found guilty of violating the terms of his probation. We affirm the trial court’s finding that defendant violated the terms of his probation because the instant record demonstrates that defendant willfully refused to comply with his obligation to pay restitution. However, we must reverse the 6-year prison sentence which was imposed on defendant’s scheme to defraud conviction¹ because, upon violation of his probation, defendant was subject to receiving a sentence up to the length of his original suspended sentence of 4.5 years’ imprisonment. See Wallace v. State, 618 So.2d 797, 798 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, on remand, the trial court may sentence defendant to a term of up to 4.5 years’ imprisonment on this conviction.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.

GRIFFIN, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

713 So. 2d 1131, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 9700, 1998 WL 429127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beal-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack