Hines v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hines v. State

346 So. 2d 1235, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15832

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 15, 1977

DocketNos. 76-634, 76-635

StatusPublished

This text of 346 So. 2d 1235 (Hines 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

Hines v. State, 346 So. 2d 1235, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15832 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court revoked appellant’s probation. Appellant was given a general sentence of from six months to five years in prison with credit for time previously served in Case No. 75-143 (Appeal No. 76-635). This sentence was imposed for convictions of (1) breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, (2) possession of burglary tools, and (3) contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In addition, the trial judge imposed a like sentence for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor in Case No. 75-243 (Appeal No. 76-634). Sentences in the two cases were to run concurrently.

Finding no merit in the points raised by appellant in his appeal from revocation of probation, we affirm the convictions. The sentence imposed in Case No. 75-143 (Appeal No. 76-635) was, however, an impermissible general sentence. We, therefore, remand for resentencing Case No. 75-143 in accordance with Darden v. State, 306 So.2d 581 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The sentence imposed must be apportioned among the convictions, Maxwell v. State, 336 So.2d 658 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court revoked appellant’s probation. Appellant was given a general sentence of from six months to five years in prison with credit for time previously served in Case No. 75-143 (Appeal No. 76-635). This sentence was imposed for convictions of (1) breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, (2) possession of burglary tools, and (3) contributing to the delinquency of a minor. In addition, the trial judge imposed a like sentence for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor in Case No. 75-243 (Appeal No. 76-634). Sentences in the two cases were to run concurrently.

Finding no merit in the points raised by appellant in his appeal from revocation of probation, we affirm the convictions. The sentence imposed in Case No. 75-143 (Appeal No. 76-635) was, however, an impermissible general sentence. We, therefore, remand for resentencing Case No. 75-143 in accordance with Darden v. State, 306 So.2d 581 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The sentence imposed must be apportioned among the convictions, Maxwell v. State, 336 So.2d 658 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).

McNULTY, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

346 So. 2d 1235, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hines-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack