MICHAEL EDWARD BRUNO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1981-03-25
No. ZZ-209
McCORD and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
395 So. 2d 631 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1981) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., Judge.

Bruno’s appeal from an order denying his Rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief urges that a split sentence committing him to the Department of Corrections for five years, three to be served by imprisonment, followed by two on probation, is unlawfully equivalent to a sentence of probation for five years on condition that the subject serve three years in prison. Villery v. Parole and Probation Commission, 396 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1980). We disagree. See Hollingsworth v. State, 394 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

AFFIRMED.

McCORD and ERVIN, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Rita v. State, 470 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
    …nial of rule 3.850 motions filed by persons in custody under a split sentence imposing imprisonment and probation. See, e.g., Chaney v. State, 452 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Roberts v. State, 400 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Bruno v. State, 395 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Hollingsworth v. State, 394 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Discerning no substantial reason for distinguishing between being a prisoner in custody while awaiting a revocation hearing and a prisoner in custody to fulfill a condi…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw