Collington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Collington v. State

589 So. 2d 465, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11917, 1991 WL 248626

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 29, 1991

DocketNo. 91-1239

StatusPublished

This text of 589 So. 2d 465 (Collington 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

Collington v. State, 589 So. 2d 465, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11917, 1991 WL 248626 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinions

GRIFFIN, Judge.

We find no error in this case except in the sentencing of defendant. Defendant was sentenced in two cases: Case No. 90-12004, a prosecution for grand theft, and Case No. 90-1114 a prosecution for robbery, which is the subject of this appeal. The amended probation order in 90-1114 indicates defendant was placed on 5 years probation for the robbery offense consecutive to Department of Corrections time and concurrent with probation in Case No. 90-12004. The scoresheet notes show seven years incarceration and five years of concurrent probation in each case. The transcript of the sentencing, however, reflects that the trial court orally imposed straight incarceration of seven years for the robbery offense, and imposed probation only in reference to the grand theft. The record also contains a “court minutes/order” but it only references five years probation, with no mention of incarceration. Indeed, we can find no written sentence of incarceration in this case. It is unclear whether the defendant received a split sentence, a straight term of incarceration, or only a term of probation for this robbery. Accordingly, we remand for clarification and correction of this sentence.

[466]*466AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

COWART, J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.

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

GRIFFIN, Judge.

We find no error in this case except in the sentencing of defendant. Defendant was sentenced in two cases: Case No. 90-12004, a prosecution for grand theft, and Case No. 90-1114 a prosecution for robbery, which is the subject of this appeal. The amended probation order in 90-1114 indicates defendant was placed on 5 years probation for the robbery offense consecutive to Department of Corrections time and concurrent with probation in Case No. 90-12004. The scoresheet notes show seven years incarceration and five years of concurrent probation in each case. The transcript of the sentencing, however, reflects that the trial court orally imposed straight incarceration of seven years for the robbery offense, and imposed probation only in reference to the grand theft. The record also contains a “court minutes/order” but it only references five years probation, with no mention of incarceration. Indeed, we can find no written sentence of incarceration in this case. It is unclear whether the defendant received a split sentence, a straight term of incarceration, or only a term of probation for this robbery. Accordingly, we remand for clarification and correction of this sentence.

[466]*466AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

COWART, J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 So. 2d 465, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11917, 1991 WL 248626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collington-v-state-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack