Beltran v. State

854 So. 2d 774, 2003 WL 22047253
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 3, 2003
Docket2D02-1281
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 854 So. 2d 774 (Beltran 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
Beltran v. State, 854 So. 2d 774, 2003 WL 22047253 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

854 So.2d 774 (2003)

Andrew BELTRAN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D02-1281.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 3, 2003.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Tosha Cohen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

WHATLEY, Judge.

Andrew Beltran appeals the sentence he received after he was found to have violated his probation. Beltran was originally charged in two separate cases with robbery with a firearm and robbery with a weapon. He entered a guilty plea to both offenses and was sentenced as a youthful offender to seventy-two months in prison, suspended, and seventy-two months of probation. Thereafter, the trial court found that Beltran had violated his probation and it sentenced him to forty years in prison for the case involving robbery with a firearm and to thirty years in prison for the robbery with a weapon case. We reverse because the trial court erred in sentencing Beltran to a term greater than his suspended sentence after his probation was revoked.

Both of Beltran's original sentences were true split sentences. See State v. Powell, 703 So.2d 444, 446 (Fla.1997) (holding that a trial court can impose a true *775 split sentence in which the entire period of incarceration is suspended). In a true split sentence, upon a violation of probation, the trial court may not order new incarceration that exceeds the remaining balance of the suspended term. Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161, 165 (Fla.1988) (holding that after the appellant, who was originally sentenced as a youthful offender, violated his probation, the trial court could not order new incarceration that exceeded the remaining balance of the suspended portion of the original sentence); see also Lawton v. State, 731 So.2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Singleton v. State, 633 So.2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); cf. Crews v. State, 779 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Here, the trial court could not sentence Beltran to a term greater than the seventy-two month term that was originally suspended.

Accordingly, we reverse Beltran's sentences and remand for the trial court to impose a sentence not in excess of seventy-two months in prison in both cases.

Convictions affirmed; sentences reversed and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.

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

Related

Stanley v. State
975 So. 2d 599 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Card v. State
889 So. 2d 175 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
854 So. 2d 774, 2003 WL 22047253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beltran-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.