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

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Neal v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 451 So. 2d 1058 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 3, 1985·No. No. 84-1410·Published

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.

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

Pincite

468 So. 2d 436 (Neal v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related