Bono v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bono v. State

553 So. 2d 293, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2746, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771, 1989 WL 145722

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 30, 1989

DocketNo. 89-1811

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 553 So. 2d 293 (Bono 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

Bono v. State, 553 So. 2d 293, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2746, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771, 1989 WL 145722 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order of modification of probation. Appellant was found guilty of grand theft of more than $100 and less than $20,000, a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years. He was placed on probation for three years and ordered to pay restitution. His probation was modified by extending the probation an additional two years with continued payment of restitution. Appellant subsequently was injured and unable to pay restitution. The trial court found appellant did not violate his probation during the two years of his injury based on his inability to pay; however, his probation was extended an additional two years.

Appellant argues, and the State concedes, that the extension of his probation for an additional two years beyond the maximum penalty was improper, based on Swift v. State, 362 So.2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), holding that the maximum period of probation is the maximum period of incarceration for the offense. We agree.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order of modification of probation dated June 16, 1989, is reversed.

BOOTH, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before us on appeal from an order of modification of probation. Appellant was found guilty of grand theft of more than $100 and less than $20,000, a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years. He was placed on probation for three years and ordered to pay restitution. His probation was modified by extending the probation an additional two years with continued payment of restitution. Appellant subsequently was injured and unable to pay restitution. The trial court found appellant did not violate his probation during the two years of his injury based on his inability to pay; however, his probation was extended an additional two years.

Appellant argues, and the State concedes, that the extension of his probation for an additional two years beyond the maximum penalty was improper, based on Swift v. State, 362 So.2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), holding that the maximum period of probation is the maximum period of incarceration for the offense. We agree.

Accordingly, the trial court’s order of modification of probation dated June 16, 1989, is reversed.

BOOTH, WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 So. 2d 293, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2746, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771, 1989 WL 145722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bono-v-state-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack