Blizzard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blizzard v. State

485 So. 2d 499, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 737, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7030

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 27, 1986

DocketNo. 85-777

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 485 So. 2d 499 (Blizzard 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

Blizzard v. State, 485 So. 2d 499, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 737, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7030 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, Judge.

After revoking appellant’s probation in three separate cases, the trial court entered identical sentences¹ in each case of 4⅛⅞ years’ imprisonment to be followed by 3 years’ probation, all concurrent.

The sentence in Case No. 82-497 is within statutory limits because the conviction is for a first degree felony punishable by life imprisonment. The sentences in Cases 82-40 and 82-270 appear to be copied from the sentence in 82-497, and exceed the statutory limits because these convictions are for third degree felonies, the maximum term for which is five years. It may well be, as the State now contends, that the trial court merely intended to impose concurrent probationary sentences for the third degree felonies, but the record is not clear on that point, and because those sentences exceed the statutory maximum, we must vacate them.

The convictions in all three cases, as well as the sentence in No. 82-497, are affirmed. The sentences in No. 82-40 and No. 82-270 are vacated and those cases are remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ„ concur.

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

ORFINGER, Judge.

After revoking appellant’s probation in three separate cases, the trial court entered identical sentences¹ in each case of 4⅛⅞ years’ imprisonment to be followed by 3 years’ probation, all concurrent.

The sentence in Case No. 82-497 is within statutory limits because the conviction is for a first degree felony punishable by life imprisonment. The sentences in Cases 82-40 and 82-270 appear to be copied from the sentence in 82-497, and exceed the statutory limits because these convictions are for third degree felonies, the maximum term for which is five years. It may well be, as the State now contends, that the trial court merely intended to impose concurrent probationary sentences for the third degree felonies, but the record is not clear on that point, and because those sentences exceed the statutory maximum, we must vacate them.

The convictions in all three cases, as well as the sentence in No. 82-497, are affirmed. The sentences in No. 82-40 and No. 82-270 are vacated and those cases are remanded to the trial court for resentenc-ing.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

485 So. 2d 499, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 737, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blizzard-v-state-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack