Spring v. State
This text of 795 So. 2d 266 (Spring 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.
Opinion
Appellant, Ronald B. Spring, appeals from an order denying his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Appellant claims, and the record reveals, that he was sentenced to terms of fifty years incarceration on at least two of the life felonies of which he was convicted. “When a court opts for a term of years instead of a life sentence for a life felony ... it may not impose a sentence longer than forty years.” Kellar v. State, 712 So.2d 1133, 1133 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).
Further, Appellant alleges that he was sentenced to the statutory máximums on a third degree felony and a second degree felony, and that additional terms of probation were added on to the sentences of incarceration, resulting in total sentences in excess of the statutory maximum. Combined periods of incarceration and probation may not exceed the maximum period of incarceration provided by statute for the offense. State v. Holmes, 360 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla.1978).
As Appellant’s claims are not conclusively refuted by the record, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm, without discussion, Appellant’s first, fourth, fifth, and sixth, claims for relief.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
795 So. 2d 266, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 13722, 2001 WL 1154504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spring-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.