Hayes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hayes v. State

630 So. 2d 226, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 190, 1994 WL 17019

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 1994

DocketNo. 93-04023

StatusPublished

This text of 630 So. 2d 226 (Hayes 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

Hayes v. State, 630 So. 2d 226, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 190, 1994 WL 17019 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James William Hayes appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence. We reverse.

The motion claims a violation of Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988), allegedly occurring when Hayes was sentenced in 1988 for violation of probation. Specifically, Hayes alleges that he was serving, prior to that time, a “true” split sentence, and that the trial court, when revoking the probationary portion of that sentence, exceeded the cap imposed by Poore by giving Hayes a new prison sentence longer than the suspended portion of the previous sentence.

The trial court’s order states that Hayes did not receive a “true” split sentence. Unfortunately, the order is not accompanied by attachments from the record which document this finding. Accordingly, we remand this case for further proceedings. If the records in this case conclusively demonstrate that Hayes’s present sentence does not violate Poore, the trial court may again deny the motion, but should attach to its order the supporting documentation. Otherwise it may be necessary to resentence Hayes.

Reversed.

HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James William Hayes appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence. We reverse.

The motion claims a violation of Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988), allegedly occurring when Hayes was sentenced in 1988 for violation of probation. Specifically, Hayes alleges that he was serving, prior to that time, a “true” split sentence, and that the trial court, when revoking the probationary portion of that sentence, exceeded the cap imposed by Poore by giving Hayes a new prison sentence longer than the suspended portion of the previous sentence.

The trial court’s order states that Hayes did not receive a “true” split sentence. Unfortunately, the order is not accompanied by attachments from the record which document this finding. Accordingly, we remand this case for further proceedings. If the records in this case conclusively demonstrate that Hayes’s present sentence does not violate Poore, the trial court may again deny the motion, but should attach to its order the supporting documentation. Otherwise it may be necessary to resentence Hayes.

Reversed.

HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

630 So. 2d 226, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 190, 1994 WL 17019, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack