EDDUNIO CORRALIZA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed withholding of adjudication and probation sentences but reversed the five-year probation term for petit theft as exceeding the six-month maximum for second-degree misdemeanors.
A five-year probation sentence for petit theft as a second-degree misdemeanor constitutes fundamental error because it exceeds the statutory maximum of six months.
[1] Imposition of probation exceeding the statutory maximum term for the offense constitutes fundamental error subject to reversal.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Corraliza was adjudicated in circuit court on petit theft charges and received withholding of adjudication with five years probation in one …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Statutory Sentencing Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The final orders under review which withhold adjudication and place the appellant on five years probation in this criminal cause are affirmed, save for the order imposing five years probation for the crime of petit theft in circuit court case no. 79-2411 which shall stand reversed, upon a holding that (a) the legal issue concerning the validity of the juvenile bindover order, which was sought to be preserved for appeal by the entry of appellant’s nolo conten-dere plea below, is not dispositive of the case as a reversal thereof would not result in appellant’s discharge from the cause but a remand for either a rehearing or retrial in the juvenile division of the circuit court, and, accordingly, the issue sought to be preserved is not properly before us, Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1979); see Woods v. State, 369 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Mitchell v. State, 351 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); State v.
D. R. S., 344 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Spencer v. State, 332 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); and (b) the imposition of five years probation for the crime of petit larceny as a second degree misdemeanor [§ 812.014(2)(c), Fla.Stat. (1979)] constitutes fundamental error because it exceeds the maximum probationary term for a second degree misdemeanor which is six months. Rose v. State, 369 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Alderman v. State, 356 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); § 948.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1979).
The trial court may upon remand correct the sentence on the petit theft conviction in circuit court case no. 79 — 2411 without requiring the presence of the appellant.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 376 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1979)
- Everette D. Alderman v. State, 356 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Woods v. State, 369 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Henderson v. State, 332 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Spencer v. State, 332 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Mitchell v. State, 351 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- State v. D. R. S., 344 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Dills v. State, 369 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)