Burkett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Burkett v. State

816 So. 2d 767, 2002 WL 925237

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 2002

Docket1D01-4427

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 816 So. 2d 767 (Burkett 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

Burkett v. State, 816 So. 2d 767, 2002 WL 925237 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

816 So.2d 767 (2002)

Colin Earl BURKETT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D01-4427.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 9, 2002.

*768 Jeffrey P. Whitton, Panama City, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the trial court summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion in which he alleged that his sentence following violation of probation was illegal under sections 958.04(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1998), and Bloodworth v. State, 769 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We reverse.

The appellant was initially sentenced to 22.35 months' incarceration to be followed by three years' probation, but with a specific provision that if the appellant completed boot camp, the probation term would be reduced to two years. He was classified as a youthful offender and he entered the boot camp program and successfully completed it. Upon release from incarceration, the trial court modified the sentence to reflect the two year period of probation contained in the initial sentencing order. After a violation of probation, the appellant was sentenced to five years' incarceration.

Upon violation of probation imposed after successful completion of boot camp, the trial court is limited to imposing a sentence of no more than 364 days in a specified facility as a penalty. See § 958.04(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1998); Bloodworth, 769 So.2d at 1118. Given that the appellant received a five-year sentence, his claim that his sentence is illegal appears from the record before us to be well founded. See id; see also Ellis v. State, 783 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

The order under review is accordingly reversed and this case is remanded for reconsideration of the appellant's motion.

ALLEN, C.J., BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

816 So.2d 767 (2002)

Colin Earl BURKETT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D01-4427.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 9, 2002.

*768 Jeffrey P. Whitton, Panama City, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, James W. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order of the trial court summarily denying his rule 3.800(a) motion in which he alleged that his sentence following violation of probation was illegal under sections 958.04(2)(b) and 958.045(5)(c), Florida Statutes (1998), and Bloodworth v. State, 769 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We reverse.

The appellant was initially sentenced to 22.35 months' incarceration to be followed by three years' probation, but with a specific provision that if the appellant completed boot camp, the probation term would be reduced to two years. He was classified as a youthful offender and he entered the boot camp program and successfully completed it. Upon release from incarceration, the trial court modified the sentence to reflect the two year period of probation contained in the initial sentencing order. After a violation of probation, the appellant was sentenced to five years' incarceration.

Upon violation of probation imposed after successful completion of boot camp, the trial court is limited to imposing a sentence of no more than 364 days in a specified facility as a penalty. See § 958.04(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1998); Bloodworth, 769 So.2d at 1118. Given that the appellant received a five-year sentence, his claim that his sentence is illegal appears from the record before us to be well founded. See id; see also Ellis v. State, 783 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).

The order under review is accordingly reversed and this case is remanded for reconsideration of the appellant's motion.

ALLEN, C.J., BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

816 So. 2d 767, 2002 WL 925237, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burkett-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.

Opinion

Colin Earl BURKETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Colin Earl BURKETT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.