Eubanks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eubanks v. State

662 So. 2d 1360, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12290, 1995 WL 689518

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 22, 1995

DocketNo. 95-2466

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 662 So. 2d 1360 (Eubanks 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

Eubanks v. State, 662 So. 2d 1360, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12290, 1995 WL 689518 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By way of a motion to correct an illegal sentence brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, appellant Corey Eubanks challenges the validity of four concurrent split sentences of five years imprisonment followed by one year probation, pronounced after appellant pled guilty to four counts of various third degree felonies. No enhanced penalty was sought by the State or imposed by the court, despite appellant’s 60 prior felony convictions. Because this sentence exceeds the five-year maximum provided by section 775.082(3)(d), Florida Statutes, this cause must be reversed and remanded for resentencing. E.g., Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(10); State v. Holmes, 360 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla.1978); Kline v. State, 642 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Milbry v. State, 469 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), opinion adopted, 476 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla.1985); see also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12) Commission Notes (1988) (“The total sanction (incarceration and probation) shall not exceed the term [1361]*1361provided by general law.”)- The trial court is further directed to clarify whether this sentence is to run concurrent with or consecutive to time being served by appellant at the time of his original sentencing.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

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

PER CURIAM.

By way of a motion to correct an illegal sentence brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, appellant Corey Eubanks challenges the validity of four concurrent split sentences of five years imprisonment followed by one year probation, pronounced after appellant pled guilty to four counts of various third degree felonies. No enhanced penalty was sought by the State or imposed by the court, despite appellant’s 60 prior felony convictions. Because this sentence exceeds the five-year maximum provided by section 775.082(3)(d), Florida Statutes, this cause must be reversed and remanded for resentencing. E.g., Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(10); State v. Holmes, 360 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla.1978); Kline v. State, 642 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Milbry v. State, 469 So.2d 137 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), opinion adopted, 476 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla.1985); see also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12) Commission Notes (1988) (“The total sanction (incarceration and probation) shall not exceed the term [1361]*1361provided by general law.”)- The trial court is further directed to clarify whether this sentence is to run concurrent with or consecutive to time being served by appellant at the time of his original sentencing.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent herewith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 So. 2d 1360, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12290, 1995 WL 689518, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eubanks-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack