State v. Vedace

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Vedace

727 So. 2d 1079, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1768, 1999 WL 89372

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 24, 1999

DocketNo. 98-0143

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 727 So. 2d 1079 (State v. Vedace) 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

State v. Vedace, 727 So. 2d 1079, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1768, 1999 WL 89372 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

POLEN, J.

The state timely appeals from the sentence imposed in Karim Vedace’s plea of no contest in five different cases¹ to five counts of burglary of a dwelling, four counts of grand theft, and one count of criminal mischief. The court treated Vedace as a youthful offender, withheld adjudication, sentenced him to one year and one day in DOC, and ordered two years’ probation in each case. Although the court was authorized to impose the above split sentence pursuant to §958.04(2)(c), Fla Stat. (1997),² it was not authorized to simultaneously withhold adjudication and incarcerate Vedace, as a condition of probation, to a term exceeding 364 days. See § 958.04(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); State v. Butler, 719 So.2d 344, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(reversing a sentence under § 958.04(2)(c) which withheld adjudication but sentenced defendant to eighteen months in prison followed by one year’s probation). Accordingly, we reverse and direct that the court, on remand, may either resentence Ve-dace as a youthful offender to incarceration or, alternatively, withhold adjudication and sentence him to prison as a condition of probation so long as imprisonment does not exceed 364 days.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

POLEN, J.

The state timely appeals from the sentence imposed in Karim Vedace’s plea of no contest in five different cases¹ to five counts of burglary of a dwelling, four counts of grand theft, and one count of criminal mischief. The court treated Vedace as a youthful offender, withheld adjudication, sentenced him to one year and one day in DOC, and ordered two years’ probation in each case. Although the court was authorized to impose the above split sentence pursuant to §958.04(2)(c), Fla Stat. (1997),² it was not authorized to simultaneously withhold adjudication and incarcerate Vedace, as a condition of probation, to a term exceeding 364 days. See § 958.04(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1997); State v. Butler, 719 So.2d 344, 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(reversing a sentence under § 958.04(2)(c) which withheld adjudication but sentenced defendant to eighteen months in prison followed by one year’s probation). Accordingly, we reverse and direct that the court, on remand, may either resentence Ve-dace as a youthful offender to incarceration or, alternatively, withhold adjudication and sentence him to prison as a condition of probation so long as imprisonment does not exceed 364 days.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

727 So. 2d 1079, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1768, 1999 WL 89372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-vedace-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack