Heatherington v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heatherington v. State

388 So. 2d 1354, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17414

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 15, 1980

DocketNo. 79-811/T4-493

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 388 So. 2d 1354 (Heatherington 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

Heatherington v. State, 388 So. 2d 1354, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17414 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

We have examined the record and find competent substantial evidence to support appellant’s conviction of delivery of phenobarbital and of conspiracy. State v. Dent, 322 So.2d 543 (Fla.1975); State v. Hubbard, 328 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

The trial court placed the appellant on probation with a condition that he serve fifty-one weeks in jail without gain time or furlough. Appellant cites Depson v. State, 363 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), as holding that the exclusion of gain time was improper. Apparently Depson involved a straight time term of years, whereas the confinement here was as a condition of probation. Adams v. State, 387 So.2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), holds that confinement as a condition of probation is not a sentence within the meaning of the statute, section 951.21(1), Florida Statutes (1979), providing statutory gain time for a county prisoner.

The judgments and orders placing appellant on probation are

AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

COWART, Judge.

We have examined the record and find competent substantial evidence to support appellant’s conviction of delivery of phenobarbital and of conspiracy. State v. Dent, 322 So.2d 543 (Fla.1975); State v. Hubbard, 328 So.2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

The trial court placed the appellant on probation with a condition that he serve fifty-one weeks in jail without gain time or furlough. Appellant cites Depson v. State, 363 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), as holding that the exclusion of gain time was improper. Apparently Depson involved a straight time term of years, whereas the confinement here was as a condition of probation. Adams v. State, 387 So.2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), holds that confinement as a condition of probation is not a sentence within the meaning of the statute, section 951.21(1), Florida Statutes (1979), providing statutory gain time for a county prisoner.

The judgments and orders placing appellant on probation are

AFFIRMED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

388 So. 2d 1354, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 17414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heatherington-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack