Dirk v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dirk v. State

478 So. 2d 1190, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2636, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17110

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 29, 1985

DocketNo. 85-438

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 1190 (Dirk 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

Dirk v. State, 478 So. 2d 1190, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2636, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17110 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After an examination of the record as directed in Bundy v. State, 471 So.2d 9 (Fla.1985), we find the circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain the jury verdicts and judgments of conviction even excluding all evidence possibly tainted by the hypnotically refreshed testimony. There is no reasonable possibility that such evidence contributed to the conviction.

Imprisonment for life is the statutory maximum punishment for the offense of burglary, a felony of the first degree (§ 810.02(2)(a), Fla.Stat.). Therefore the defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment followed by twenty years probation for this offense exceeds the statutory maximum. [1191]*1191See, e.g., State v. Holmes, 360 So.2d 380 (Fla.1978); McGraw v. State, 404 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Bagley v. State, 397 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The sentencing provision for probation following life imprisonment is stricken.

We affirm the defendant’s convictions and, as amended, the sentences imposed.

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

After an examination of the record as directed in Bundy v. State, 471 So.2d 9 (Fla.1985), we find the circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain the jury verdicts and judgments of conviction even excluding all evidence possibly tainted by the hypnotically refreshed testimony. There is no reasonable possibility that such evidence contributed to the conviction.

Imprisonment for life is the statutory maximum punishment for the offense of burglary, a felony of the first degree (§ 810.02(2)(a), Fla.Stat.). Therefore the defendant’s sentence of life imprisonment followed by twenty years probation for this offense exceeds the statutory maximum. [1191]*1191See, e.g., State v. Holmes, 360 So.2d 380 (Fla.1978); McGraw v. State, 404 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Bagley v. State, 397 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The sentencing provision for probation following life imprisonment is stricken.

We affirm the defendant’s convictions and, as amended, the sentences imposed.

AFFIRMED.

UPCHURCH, SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 1190, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2636, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 17110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dirk-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack