FELIX SANCHEZ, 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.
Felix Sanchez appeals his conviction for burglary and dealing in stolen property, challenging the propriety of his sentence imposing consecutive terms of community control followed by probation. The court reversed and remanded for resentencing because the ambiguous sentencing structure resembled an improper interrupted sentence.
The court reversed and remanded for resentencing, holding that while consecutive terms of community control are permissible when multiple offenses are sentenced at the same hearing (with a two-year maximum for each offense), the ambiguous sentencing structure in this case—requiring the defendant to serve community control, then probation, then be recalled for more community control and probation—resembles an improper interrupted sentence and is therefore impermissible.
[1] Community control is a sanction that may not be imposed as an interrupted sentence.
[2] The duration of community control for a single offense is limited to two years, but this limit does not prevent consecutive terms of community control for multiple offens…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“two years is the maximum permissible period of community control for any one offense”
Establishes that consecutive community control terms are permissible when sentencing for multiple offenses at the same hearing, with each offense limited to a two-year maximum.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSanchez was convicted by jury of burglary and dealing in stolen property. The trial court sentenced him to two years of community control on each coun…
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 Appeal Of Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL, Judge.
After the defendant Felix Sanchez was tried by jury and found guilty of burglary and dealing in stolen property, he was sen tenced to “two years (community control) on each count and followed by three years probation on each count to run consecutive, one to the other.” The defendant’s recommended guidelines sentence was community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration.
On appeal, the defendant contends that his sentence is improper on three grounds. First, the defendant argues that since his recommended guidelines sentence was community control or twelve to thirty months incarceration, the imposition of community control and probation constitutes a departure sentence which is improper in the absence of written reasons. This argument is without merit. See Hankey v. State, 529 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(13) committee note.
The defendant also contends that the length of community control is restricted to two years and therefore the trial court was without authority to impose consecutive terms of community control. We conclude that section 948.01(5), Florida Statutes (1987)1 does not limit the duration of community control to a single two year period when the defendant is sentenced at the same sentencing hearing for multiple offenses but rather, two years is the maximum permissible period of community control for any one offense. See Mick v. State, 506 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Finally, the defendant contends that the sentence is flawed because it requires him to first serve community control for two years to be followed by three years probation and then be recalled to serve another two year term of community control followed by three years probation. The defendant contends that this is similar to the interrupted sentence imposed and rejected in Calhoun v. State, 522 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).
In Calhoun, the defendant was convicted and sentenced in two cases involving burglary. His recommended guidelines sentence was seven to nine years imprisonment. The trial judge imposed two consecutive split sentences, that is, five years incarceration and two years probation in one case, followed by a consecutive split sentence of four years and two years probation in the second case. The second district pointed out that both sentences exceeded the statutory maximum for the third degree felony charged in each case, which was five years. The court also noted that in order to conform to the judgments as written, the defendant would have to serve five years imprisonment, be released to serve two years probation, then be “recalled” to serve four more years imprisonment before again being released to serve two years probation. The court noted that such an interrupted sentence is not allowed under Florida Statutes. Since community control is a harsh and more severe alternative to ordinary probation, see State v. Mestas, 507 So. 2d 587 (Fla.1987), an interrupted sentence involving community control and probation is likewise improper. In response, the state claims that this is not an interrupted sentence but rather the court imposed two consecutive terms of community control followed by two consecutive terms of probation. In other words, the court imposed four years of community control followed by six years probation. We are unable to discern the trial court’s intention from the record and accordingly we vacate the defendant’s sentences and remand for resentencing. On remand, we direct the trial court to clearly indicate the sanction imposed for each offense.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. . This section provides in part as follows: "The sanctions imposed by order of the court shall be commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. When community control or a program of public service is ordered by the court, the duration of community control supervision or public service may not be longer than the sentence that could have been imposed if the offender had been committed for the offense or a period not to exceed two years, whichever is less.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Ogden v. State, 605 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…rt went on to hold that consecutive two-year terms of community control could be imposed, consecutive terms were only authorized when separate crimes had been committed. See also State v. Arnold, 550 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Sanchez v. State, 538 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Mick v. State, 506 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). However, appellant was convicted of only one offense. We find that the specific statutory limitation on the term of community control governs over the more general provisions…
-
Crawford v. State, 567 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 1990)…1 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In this case there were two discrete, separate crimes. The statute does not speak to multiple charges and it does not prohibit consecutive sentences. Other courts have reached the same conclusion. Sanchez v. State, 538 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); Mick v. State, 506 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Crawford’s reliance on Allen v. State, 526 So. 2d 69 (Fla.1988), is misplaced. In that case we construed the Youthful Offender Statute as placing a six-year maximum on commitm…
-
Horner v. State, 617 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 1993)…ires that the incar-cerative portions of the sentencing be completed before the non-incarcerative portions begin. See, e.g., Mitchell v. State, 594 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); Humphrey v. State, 579 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA1991); Sanchez v. State, 538 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA1989). “A probationary term that falls between or interrupts an incarcerative sentence or sentences is illegal.” Hum [*313] phrey, 579 So. 2d at 336. Horner s interpretation of the statute would limit probation to the remainder of the m…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Mestas, 507 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1987)
- Calhoun v. State, 522 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Mick v. State, 506 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Hankey v. State, 529 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)