Monteleone v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Monteleone v. State

702 So. 2d 595, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13350, 1997 WL 740934

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 1997

DocketNo. 96-02278

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 702 So. 2d 595 (Monteleone 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

Monteleone v. State, 702 So. 2d 595, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13350, 1997 WL 740934 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant challenges his sentence following the revocation of his probation. We agree that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to more than one year in county jail since the recommended guideline range for his offense was “any nonstate prison sanction.”

Appellant pleaded guilty to a felony charge and a misdemeanor charge in two separate cases. In both cases, appellant was sentenced to two years’ probation on the felony charges, and one year’s probation on the misdemeanor charges. All counts were to run concurrently. Appellant subsequently admitted to violating his probation, and after a hearing, his probation was revoked. Although the recommended guideline range was “any nonstate prison sanction,” the trial court sentenced appellant to two consecutive terms of one year in county jail followed by one year of probation.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Singleton v. State, 554 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1990), that a recommended guidelines range of “any nonstate prison sanction” prohibits successive sentences to county jail when the cumulative effect exceeds one year if the sentences for various pending offenses are imposed at the same sentencing hearing. Singleton; § 922.051, Fla. Stat. (1995). Due to the fact that appellant’s sentences were to run consecutively; appellant received 728 days in county jail followed by two years’ probation. The state concedes that appellant’s sentence is legally impermissible.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant challenges his sentence following the revocation of his probation. We agree that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to more than one year in county jail since the recommended guideline range for his offense was “any nonstate prison sanction.”

Appellant pleaded guilty to a felony charge and a misdemeanor charge in two separate cases. In both cases, appellant was sentenced to two years’ probation on the felony charges, and one year’s probation on the misdemeanor charges. All counts were to run concurrently. Appellant subsequently admitted to violating his probation, and after a hearing, his probation was revoked. Although the recommended guideline range was “any nonstate prison sanction,” the trial court sentenced appellant to two consecutive terms of one year in county jail followed by one year of probation.

The Florida Supreme Court ruled in Singleton v. State, 554 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1990), that a recommended guidelines range of “any nonstate prison sanction” prohibits successive sentences to county jail when the cumulative effect exceeds one year if the sentences for various pending offenses are imposed at the same sentencing hearing. Singleton; § 922.051, Fla. Stat. (1995). Due to the fact that appellant’s sentences were to run consecutively; appellant received 728 days in county jail followed by two years’ probation. The state concedes that appellant’s sentence is legally impermissible.

DANAHY, A.C.J., and QUINCE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

702 So. 2d 595, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 13350, 1997 WL 740934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monteleone-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack