Swain v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Swain v. State

779 So. 2d 541, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16819, 2000 WL 1867947

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 2000

DocketNo. 2D99-3604

StatusPublished

This text of 779 So. 2d 541 (Swain 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

Swain v. State, 779 So. 2d 541, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16819, 2000 WL 1867947 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Harry Swain contends the sentence he received after violating his probation was illegal. In a laudable demonstration of candor, the State concedes the error. Alas, we disagree with them both.

Swain’s original sentence was nineteen years’ imprisonment, with fifteen years suspended to be served on probation. This was a true split sentence. See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988). He served the inearcerative portion of his sentence, began the probationary portion, and then violated his probation. The circuit court sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment, with credit for. time previously served. The court then suspended eight years of the sentence and ordered it be 'served on probation. Swain argues and the State agrees that the court could only sentence him to the suspended portion of his initial sentence; that is, fifteen years’ imprisonment. But as we explained in Crews v. State, 779 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the sentence imposed in this case was proper. We affirm.

PARKER, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

Harry Swain contends the sentence he received after violating his probation was illegal. In a laudable demonstration of candor, the State concedes the error. Alas, we disagree with them both.

Swain’s original sentence was nineteen years’ imprisonment, with fifteen years suspended to be served on probation. This was a true split sentence. See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988). He served the inearcerative portion of his sentence, began the probationary portion, and then violated his probation. The circuit court sentenced him to nineteen years’ imprisonment, with credit for. time previously served. The court then suspended eight years of the sentence and ordered it be 'served on probation. Swain argues and the State agrees that the court could only sentence him to the suspended portion of his initial sentence; that is, fifteen years’ imprisonment. But as we explained in Crews v. State, 779 So.2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), the sentence imposed in this case was proper. We affirm.

PARKER, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

779 So. 2d 541, 2000 Fla. App. LEXIS 16819, 2000 WL 1867947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swain-v-state-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack