DANIEL EUGENE HOLLOWAY, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the probationary terms for loitering and petit theft exceeded the statutory maximums for second-degree misdemeanors.
Daniel Eugene Holloway was placed on probation for loitering, grand theft, petit theft, and two counts of burglary. He appealed the length of his prob…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Eugene Holloway appeals his placement on probation (adjudication withheld) for loitering, grand theft, petit theft, and two counts of burglary. We affirm the order of probation, but remand for modification of the probationary term.
Only one of the points appellant raises has merit. He was given five years probation on the loitering count and one year probation on the petit theft count. However, both loitering, a violation of section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1979), and petit theft, a violation of section 812.014(2)(c), are second-degree misdemeanors, for which the maximum probationary term is six months. § 948.04(1); Alderman v. State, 356 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Accordingly, these parts of the order of probation setting forth the terms of probation on the loitering and petit theft counts are vacated and the cause remanded with directions to impose new probationary terms within the maximum allowable by statute. The order of probation is otherwise affirmed.
SCHEB, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Purvis v. The Honorable Hubert R. Lindsey, 587 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…n for more than six months for a second degree misdemeanor which is punishable by a maximum term of sixty days. See Alderman v. State, 356 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Bouie v. State, 360 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). See also Holloway v. State, 393 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Corraliza v. State, 391 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), rev. denied, 399 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1981). Additionally, it has been held that “a court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application for revocation of probation based upon a…
-
Smith v. State, 484 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1986)…observed that "probation cannot normally be extended beyond the maximum permissible sentence, [but section 948.04] does permit the court to place a defendant on probation for six months in a misdemeanor case." Id. at 930. See also Holloway v. State, 393 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Corraliza v. State, 391 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) review denied, 399 So. 2d 1141 (Fla.1981); cf. McNulty v. State, 339 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976) (finding that the open-ended provision of 948.04(1) does not authorize pro…
-
S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. & Johns E. Co., Inc. v. Ciacci, 647 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ctively, and an E/C may reduce compensation benefits to account for social security benefits only prospectively, as of the date it exercises their right under section 440.15(9)(c). Horton, supra at 1355; quoting Burley v. Santa Fe Community College, 393 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Thus, the JCC erred in retroactively offsetting social security retirement benefits prior to the E/C exercising their right to offset. In their brief, the E/C argue that in order to have a proper offset right, there must be unc…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Everette D. Alderman v. State, 356 So. 2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)