Haynes v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Haynes v. State

661 So. 2d 905, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10656, 1995 WL 601356

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 13, 1995

DocketNo. 94-00690

StatusPublished

This text of 661 So. 2d 905 (Haynes 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

Haynes v. State, 661 So. 2d 905, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10656, 1995 WL 601356 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the sentences imposed in two cases following the revocation of probation and in a third case for new substantive offenses. We affirm the sentences imposed for the new substantive offenses but reverse the sentences in the two cases where probation was revoked.

At the sentencing hearing, the appellant was sentenced for a new substantive offense in circuit court case number 93-3022 and for violations of probation in circuit court case numbers 92-1365 and 87-3216. We find no error in the calculation of the scoresheet nor the sentences imposed for the new offenses in circuit court ease number 93-3022 and affirm those sentences. However, the trial court erred in imposing the concurrent sentences of five years in prison for the violations of probation in circuit court ease numbers 92-1365 and 87-3216. These sentences were improper because the statutory maximum for each of these third degree felonies was five years in prison and the trial court did not credit appellant for prison time he had already served in these cases. State v. Holmes, 360 So.2d 380 (Fla.1978); § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1993). See also Waters v. State, 662 So.2d 332 (Fla.1995).

We reverse each of the five year prison sentences in circuit court case numbers 92-1365 and 87-3216 and remand for resentenc-ing.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the sentences imposed in two cases following the revocation of probation and in a third case for new substantive offenses. We affirm the sentences imposed for the new substantive offenses but reverse the sentences in the two cases where probation was revoked.

At the sentencing hearing, the appellant was sentenced for a new substantive offense in circuit court case number 93-3022 and for violations of probation in circuit court case numbers 92-1365 and 87-3216. We find no error in the calculation of the scoresheet nor the sentences imposed for the new offenses in circuit court ease number 93-3022 and affirm those sentences. However, the trial court erred in imposing the concurrent sentences of five years in prison for the violations of probation in circuit court ease numbers 92-1365 and 87-3216. These sentences were improper because the statutory maximum for each of these third degree felonies was five years in prison and the trial court did not credit appellant for prison time he had already served in these cases. State v. Holmes, 360 So.2d 380 (Fla.1978); § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1993). See also Waters v. State, 662 So.2d 332 (Fla.1995).

We reverse each of the five year prison sentences in circuit court case numbers 92-1365 and 87-3216 and remand for resentenc-ing.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

661 So. 2d 905, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 10656, 1995 WL 601356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haynes-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack