Massey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Massey v. State

338 So. 2d 560, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15746

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 22, 1976

DocketNo. 75-656

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 338 So. 2d 560 (Massey 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

Massey v. State, 338 So. 2d 560, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15746 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant/defendant was charged with entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. He entered a plea of nolo contendere to both charges. At that time the trial judge adjudicated appellant guilty of entering without breaking and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. The judge stated that he would not pass sentence on the larceny [561]*561charge. It appears from the final judgment however that appellant was adjudicated guilty on both charges and sentenced to the one five-year term for both crimes.

Appellant contends that his plea was not voluntarily made with full understanding of its significance. During the court’s colloquy with appellant to determine the voluntariness of the plea the judge misinformed him that the maximum sentence for entering without breaking was 15 years.¹ We affirm the judgment on this charge since appellant has failed to show that he did not know the correct maximum term or to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the misstatement. Young v. State, 327 So.2d 127 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).

We accept appellee’s suggestion that the trial court clarify its judgment and sentence on the grand larceny charge. If the trial judge intended to adjudicate appellant guilty on both charges the sentence must be apportioned between the two. Darden v. State, 306 So.2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

Accordingly, we affirm in part and remand in part with directions.

GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

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

BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.

Appellant/defendant was charged with entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. He entered a plea of nolo contendere to both charges. At that time the trial judge adjudicated appellant guilty of entering without breaking and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. The judge stated that he would not pass sentence on the larceny [561]*561charge. It appears from the final judgment however that appellant was adjudicated guilty on both charges and sentenced to the one five-year term for both crimes.

Appellant contends that his plea was not voluntarily made with full understanding of its significance. During the court’s colloquy with appellant to determine the voluntariness of the plea the judge misinformed him that the maximum sentence for entering without breaking was 15 years.¹ We affirm the judgment on this charge since appellant has failed to show that he did not know the correct maximum term or to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the misstatement. Young v. State, 327 So.2d 127 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).

We accept appellee’s suggestion that the trial court clarify its judgment and sentence on the grand larceny charge. If the trial judge intended to adjudicate appellant guilty on both charges the sentence must be apportioned between the two. Darden v. State, 306 So.2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).

Accordingly, we affirm in part and remand in part with directions.

GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 So. 2d 560, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15746, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/massey-v-state-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack