Troutman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Troutman v. State

668 So. 2d 340, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1539, 1996 WL 75313

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1176

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 668 So. 2d 340 (Troutman 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

Troutman v. State, 668 So. 2d 340, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1539, 1996 WL 75313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

Bennie Troutman (herein “Troutman”) appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences in the county jail, the aggregate of which exceeds one year. The state concedes that these sentences were improper. We vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.

Troutman entered a plea of nolo contende-re and was adjudicated guilty of one felony (Count I) and two misdemeanors (Counts II and III). Count I was unlawful possession of a controlled substance,¹ Count II was unlawful possession of a controlled substance,² and Count III was unlawful possession and use of drug paraphernalia.³ Troutman was sentenced to 364 days on each count, to be served consecutively. The Florida Supreme Court has approved the decision of this court [341]*341which held proper consecutive sentences, the aggregate of which exceed one year in the county jail, where all the crimes for which the sentences are imposed are misdemeanors. See Armstrong v. State, 640 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), approved Armstrong v. State, 656 So.2d 455 (Fla.1995). This court, however, has expressly disapproved sentences in the county jail where the aggregate exceeds one year, if any of the convictions is a felony. Locke v. State, 656 So.2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also Singleton v. State, 554 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1990), approving Kline v. State, 509 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In the instant ease, because one of the convictions was a felony, the trial court must resentence Troutman.

We certify the following question to the supreme court as one of great public importance:

CAN ARMSTRONG BE APPLIED TO A CASE IN WHICH A DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED OF A FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR?

Sentences VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing in accordance with Locke v. State, 656 So.2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, Judge.

Bennie Troutman (herein “Troutman”) appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences in the county jail, the aggregate of which exceeds one year. The state concedes that these sentences were improper. We vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing.

Troutman entered a plea of nolo contende-re and was adjudicated guilty of one felony (Count I) and two misdemeanors (Counts II and III). Count I was unlawful possession of a controlled substance,¹ Count II was unlawful possession of a controlled substance,² and Count III was unlawful possession and use of drug paraphernalia.³ Troutman was sentenced to 364 days on each count, to be served consecutively. The Florida Supreme Court has approved the decision of this court [341]*341which held proper consecutive sentences, the aggregate of which exceed one year in the county jail, where all the crimes for which the sentences are imposed are misdemeanors. See Armstrong v. State, 640 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), approved Armstrong v. State, 656 So.2d 455 (Fla.1995). This court, however, has expressly disapproved sentences in the county jail where the aggregate exceeds one year, if any of the convictions is a felony. Locke v. State, 656 So.2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also Singleton v. State, 554 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1990), approving Kline v. State, 509 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). In the instant ease, because one of the convictions was a felony, the trial court must resentence Troutman.

We certify the following question to the supreme court as one of great public importance:

CAN ARMSTRONG BE APPLIED TO A CASE IN WHICH A DEFENDANT IS CONVICTED OF A FELONY AND MISDEMEANOR?

Sentences VACATED; REMANDED for resentencing in accordance with Locke v. State, 656 So.2d 571 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

DAUKSCH and COBB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

668 So. 2d 340, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1539, 1996 WL 75313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/troutman-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack