WILLIAM TAFT COLEMAN, 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.
William Taft Coleman appealed three of his sentences following a nolo contendere plea to burglary, aggravated assault, shooting into a building, and criminal mischief. The appellate court affirmed his convictions and the criminal mischief sentence, but reversed and remanded for resentencing on the other three charges due to sentencing errors.
The split sentence for aggravated assault exceeded the statutory maximum and was improper. The three-year firearm minimum mandatory sentence for shooting into a building was improper because that offense is not enumerated in the applicable statute. A single probation order for multiple convictions was improper; separate orders are required for each offense.
[1] The combined periods of incarceration and probation imposed as a split sentence probation alternative must not exceed the maximum term of imprisonment provided by statute…
[2] Incarceration as a condition of probation should serve as an incident to give a defendant "a taste of prison," not as the "main course."
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The combined periods of incarceration and probation cannot exceed the maximum statutory period of incarceration.”
Establishes the legal principle that made the split sentence for aggravated assault improper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Coleman pled nolo contendere to charges of burglary, aggravated assault, shooting into or within a building, and criminal mischief. He recei…
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 Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Appellant pled nolo contendere to charges of burglary, aggravated assault, shooting into or within a building, and criminal mischief. He appeals three of his sentences.
Appellant was sentenced to a split sentence of three years’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation for the aggravated assault conviction. Aggravated assault is a third-degree felony punishable by a period of incarceration not to exceed five years. §§ 775.082(3)(d), 784.021, Fla. Stat. (1985).
The combined periods of incarceration and probation cannot exceed the maximum statutory period of incarceration. State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1978).
Since appellant received a split sentence which exceeds the statutory maximum, the sentence imposed for the aggravated assault conviction is improper. The written sentence for shooting into or within a building reflects the imposition of a three-year firearm minimum mandatory sentence pursuant to section 775.-087(2), Florida Statutes (1985).
To impose the possession of a firearm minimum mandatory sentence, the offense for which appellant was sentenced must be among the listed statutory offenses. See Simmons v. State, 457 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Shooting into or within a building is not one of the offenses enumerated under section 775.087(2).
It may be, however, that this was a scrivener’s error because at sentencing the court pointed out that in this instance the aggravated assault charge carried a three-year minimum mandatory sentence.
Lastly, by virtue of a single order, the trial court also placed appellant on probation for the felony convictions of burglary, aggravated assault and shooting into or within a building. A general order of probation predicated upon more than one conviction of criminal conduct is improper. There must be a separate order of probation for each offense. Cervantes v. State, 442 So. 2d 176 (Fla.1983). Therefore, the general order imposing probation upon appellant for the three criminal offenses was improper. Accordingly, we affirm all of appellant’s convictions and his sentence for criminal mischief. We reverse and remand for re-sentencing on the charges of burglary, aggravated assault and shooting into or within a building.
DANAHY, C.J., and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCRAY v. State, 517 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…hese offenses) and probation. The law is quite clear that when the court imposes a split sentence, the combined period of incarceration and probation may not exceed the statutory maximum. State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1978); Coleman v. State, 496 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). It is also clear that a term of probation is not to exceed the statutory maximum for incarceration, Watts v. State, 328 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) and that [*771] offenders sentenced to incarceration must be given credit for…
-
Delk v. State, 510 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…lea hearing. We do, however, find that the trial court’s general order of probation in case number 85-4530 must be reversed and remanded for entry of separate orders of probation for each of the three offenses charged in that case. Coleman v. State, 496 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Upon remand, the trial court is additionally directed to clarify appellant’s sentences and probation orders to reflect that appellant’s terms of probation are interrupted for the periods of incarceration, and that he should recei…
-
Roache v. State, 547 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…ant had been unsuccessful, making him “not a candidate for rehabilitation.” First, it is established that the total of the incarcerative and probationary portions of a split sentence may not exceed the term provided by general law. Coleman v. State, 496 So. 2d 896 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1978). See also Committee Note to Rule 3.701(d)(12), Fla.R.Crim.P. Since the maximum statutory penalty for forgery is five years, sections 831.01, 775.082(3)(d), Florida Statutes, the split se…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1978)
- Cervantes v. State, 442 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 1983)
- Citrus Mach. Co., Inc. v. SIX L'S Packing Co., Inc., 457 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)