Bowman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bowman v. State

86 So. 3d 534, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5556, 2012 WL 1193189

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 11, 2012

DocketNo. 2D10-5964

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 86 So. 3d 534 (Bowman 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

Bowman v. State, 86 So. 3d 534, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5556, 2012 WL 1193189 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SILBERMAN, Chief Judge.

Corey Shane Bowman seeks review of the trial court’s order revoking his probation in case no. 07-3234 and ordering his probationary term in case no. 09-4489 to be held in abeyance pending the completion of his prison term in case no. 07-3234. Among other things, Bowman argues that the trial court improperly extended his probation in case no. 09-4489. We affirm the court’s finding that Bowman willfully and substantially violated his probation in case no. 07-3234 without further comment. We note that the court did not extend the term of Bowman’s probation in case no. 09-4489 by declaring that Bowman’s probation in that case would be held in abey-[535]*535anee while he served his incarcerative term in case no. 07-8234. When a defendant who is serving probation in one case is incarcerated in a separate case, his probationary sentence is automatically “tolled.” Badger v. State, 23 So.3d 813, 816-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Jones v. State, 964 So.2d 167, 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Williams v. State, 773 So.2d 660, 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Savage, 589 So.2d 1016, 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Thus, the trial court was simply explaining the legal effect of its incarcerative sentence in case no. 07-3234 on the probationary sentence in case no. 09-4489.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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

SILBERMAN, Chief Judge.

Corey Shane Bowman seeks review of the trial court’s order revoking his probation in case no. 07-3234 and ordering his probationary term in case no. 09-4489 to be held in abeyance pending the completion of his prison term in case no. 07-3234. Among other things, Bowman argues that the trial court improperly extended his probation in case no. 09-4489. We affirm the court’s finding that Bowman willfully and substantially violated his probation in case no. 07-3234 without further comment. We note that the court did not extend the term of Bowman’s probation in case no. 09-4489 by declaring that Bowman’s probation in that case would be held in abey-[535]*535anee while he served his incarcerative term in case no. 07-8234. When a defendant who is serving probation in one case is incarcerated in a separate case, his probationary sentence is automatically “tolled.” Badger v. State, 23 So.3d 813, 816-17 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Jones v. State, 964 So.2d 167, 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Williams v. State, 773 So.2d 660, 660 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Savage, 589 So.2d 1016, 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Thus, the trial court was simply explaining the legal effect of its incarcerative sentence in case no. 07-3234 on the probationary sentence in case no. 09-4489.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

86 So. 3d 534, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5556, 2012 WL 1193189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack