DARRYL A. SINGLETON, 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.
Singleton appealed his sentence for burglary of a conveyance, arguing it violated section 922.051 by imposing consecutive county jail sentences totaling more than one year. The Fifth District affirmed, holding that section 922.051 is inapplicable to post-1983 cases governed by sentencing guidelines, which expressly contemplate non-prison sanctions.
Section 922.051 does not apply to post-1983 cases governed by sentencing guidelines. The sentencing guidelines, which expressly directed a non-prison sanction, control and supersede the pre-guideline statute. The consecutive sentence was therefore proper.
[1] Sentencing guidelines, which direct non-state prison sanctions, supersede the general prohibition against imposing county jail sentences for felonies when the cumulative…
[2] The policy considerations underlying statutes prohibiting county jail sentences for felons are undermined by the advent of sentencing guidelines that discourage the use o…
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“When a statute expressly directs that imprisonment be in a state prison, the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment in the county jail if the total of the prisoner's cumulative sentences is not more than one year.”
The statutory language of section 922.051 that Singleton relied upon to challenge his sentence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSingleton pleaded guilty to burglary of a conveyance, a third-degree felony. The trial court sentenced him to five years probation with 270 days in co…
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 Felony Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Pursuant to motion for rehearing, we vacate our prior opinion herein and substitute therefor the following:
Singleton pled guilty to burglary of a conveyance, a third degree felony in violation of section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1987). The trial court entered judgment and sentenced Singleton to five years probation with the condition that he serve 270 days in the county jail. The court further ordered that the incarcerative term was to be served consecutively to the 270 days in county jail that he was currently serving in case no. 87-6212, which also involved the third degree felony of a burglary of a conveyance. The guideline recommendation was “any nonstate prison sanction.”
On appeal Singleton contends that his sentence violates section 922.051, which provides:
When a statute expressly directs that imprisonment be in a state prison, the court may impose a sentence of imprisonment in the county jail if the total of the prisoner’s cumulative sentences is not more than one year. The above statute is not applicable to the instant case. The applicable statutes herein are the sentencing guidelines, which ex-préssly directed that Singleton not be imprisoned in state prison. The instant situation is analogous to the computation of misdemeanor jail time, which has never been part of the equation used to determine a section 922.051 violation. See Gwynn v. Orange County Board of County Commissioners, 527 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) and Mancebo v. State, 338 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).
The case relied upon by the appellant, Dade County v. Baker, 265 So. 2d 700 (Fla.1972) is not relevant to a post-1983 case governed by the sentencing guidelines. As pointed out by Associate Judge Miner in his discerning dissent in Kline v. State, 509 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the policy considerations underlying section 922.051— i.e., discouraging use of county jails when sentencing felons — ceased to exist with the advent of the sentencing guidelines. Indeed, the policy has now been reversed: “[Gjuidelines sentencing seems premised on discouraging use of state penal facilities for [felons].” Kline at 1184 (Miner, J., dissenting). The majority opinion in Kline relied on section 922.051, but overlooked subsequent and superseding1 statutory en actments in the form of the sentencing guidelines.
Accordingly, we affirm the consecutive sentence imposed by the trial court, and certify conflict with the majority opinion in Kline.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, C.J., and DANIEL, J., concur. . See Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423, 107 S.Ct. 2446, 96 L.Ed.2d 351 (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Singleton v. State, 554 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1990)…BARKETT, Justice. We have for review Singleton v. State, 540 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), because of certified conflict with Kline v. State, 509 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).1 The issue presented is whether the recommended guidelines range of “any nonstate prison [*1163] sanction,” as provided by Florida Rule of C…
Authorities Cited
- Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1987)
- Dade Cnty. v. Honorable Paul Baker, 265 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 1972)
- Kline v. State, 509 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Mancebo v. State, 338 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Gwynn v. Orange Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs, 527 So. 2d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)