Neal v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Neal v. State

468 So. 2d 436, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1117, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13806

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 3, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1410

StatusPublished

This text of 468 So. 2d 436 (Neal 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

Neal v. State, 468 So. 2d 436, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1117, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13806 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHEB, Judge.

Defendant challenges his sentence for burglary of a structure imposed after revocation of his probation. He argues that the [437]*437trial court erred in not following the procedure under the sentencing guidelines.

We find no merit to defendant’s contention. His sentence, which was imposed on June 8, 1984, was not under the sentencing guidelines, because he committed the burglary before October 1, 1983, and did not affirmatively select to be sentenced under the guidelines. See Heathcoat v. State, 463 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Rodriguez v. State, 458 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Further, defendant’s thirty-month sentence for burglary of a structure, a third-degree felony, was within the statutory maximum sentence of five years. See § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1983).

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of defendant’s probation and his conviction and sentence for burglary of a structure.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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

SCHEB, Judge.

Defendant challenges his sentence for burglary of a structure imposed after revocation of his probation. He argues that the [437]*437trial court erred in not following the procedure under the sentencing guidelines.

We find no merit to defendant’s contention. His sentence, which was imposed on June 8, 1984, was not under the sentencing guidelines, because he committed the burglary before October 1, 1983, and did not affirmatively select to be sentenced under the guidelines. See Heathcoat v. State, 463 So.2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Rodriguez v. State, 458 So.2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Further, defendant’s thirty-month sentence for burglary of a structure, a third-degree felony, was within the statutory maximum sentence of five years. See § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1983).

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of defendant’s probation and his conviction and sentence for burglary of a structure.

GRIMES, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

468 So. 2d 436, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1117, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 13806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neal-v-state-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack