Milton v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Milton v. State

637 So. 2d 77, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4797, 1994 WL 195249

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 1994

DocketNo. 94-799

StatusPublished

This text of 637 So. 2d 77 (Milton 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

Milton v. State, 637 So. 2d 77, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4797, 1994 WL 195249 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. § 921.16, Fla.Stat. (1993); Johnson v. State, 538 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The appellant misinterprets Smith v. State, 515 So.2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Smith held that a sentence imposed that runs consecutive to a sentence in any other pending case is indefinite and therefore improper. The court stated that a sentence must commence on a definite date, albeit after another definite sentence has been served.

Here, appellant was paroled before he completed serving his original 15 year sentence and committed three additional crimes while on parole. He was then required to complete the original 15 year sentence and to serve an additional 15 years for the three new crimes consecutive to the original term. Before he completed the original term, he escaped in 1983 and committed still another offense for which he was sentenced to serve 15 years consecutive to the last sentence imposed but which he had not begun to serve. The final sentence was to commence on a definite date, although after the two previous, definite sentences had been served.

The trial court’s denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. § 921.16, Fla.Stat. (1993); Johnson v. State, 538 So.2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The appellant misinterprets Smith v. State, 515 So.2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Smith held that a sentence imposed that runs consecutive to a sentence in any other pending case is indefinite and therefore improper. The court stated that a sentence must commence on a definite date, albeit after another definite sentence has been served.

Here, appellant was paroled before he completed serving his original 15 year sentence and committed three additional crimes while on parole. He was then required to complete the original 15 year sentence and to serve an additional 15 years for the three new crimes consecutive to the original term. Before he completed the original term, he escaped in 1983 and committed still another offense for which he was sentenced to serve 15 years consecutive to the last sentence imposed but which he had not begun to serve. The final sentence was to commence on a definite date, although after the two previous, definite sentences had been served.

The trial court’s denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 So. 2d 77, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4797, 1994 WL 195249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milton-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack