Starling v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Starling v. State

458 So. 2d 799, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2214, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15597

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 1984

DocketNo. 83-123

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 458 So. 2d 799 (Starling 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

Starling v. State, 458 So. 2d 799, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2214, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15597 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a sentence in a grand theft case. The Appellant does not seek any specific relief but we presume he would have a reversal of the sentence. He alleges in his brief that the sentence is cruel and unusual.

Appellant was convicted of numerous counts of grand theft. He was placed on probation as to some counts and no sentence was imposed as to others.

As we said in Phillips v. State, 455 So.2d 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) and as was said by the Supreme Court in Bateh v. Florida, 110 So.2d 7 (Fla.1959), cert. denied, Bateh v. Florida, 361 U.S. 826, 80 S.Ct. 74, 4 L.Ed.2d 69 (1959) it is error to suspend a sentence indefinitely. It is unfair to all concerned, victims and defendant alike, and serves no beneficial purpose.

While the sentence is affirmed, as in Phillips, the practice should be discouraged.

AFFIRMED.

COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.

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