VANESSA TURNER, 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 sequencing of sentences, specifically interrupting imprisonment with probation, was improper.
[1] A trial court may depart upwards one sentencing bracket without written reasons when probation is violated.
[2] An amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d. …
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 intelligenceTurner was sentenced for possession of cocaine and battery on a law enforcement officer. The sentences were to be served consecutively, with probation…
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 Battery On A Law Enforcement Officer cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Turner appeals from her sentences received for possession of cocaine1 after revocation of probation, and battery on a law enforcement officer.2 The trial judge sentenced Turner to the statutory maximum term of five years on the first crime,3 to be split by twenty-four months in jail and thirty-six months on probation. For the battery, Turner was sentenced to 364 days in jail, to-be served consecutive to the first sentence by virtue of section 921.16 Florida. Statutes 1987.
Turner raises various points on appeal, which we find without merit. The scoresheet for both crimes placed her in a presumptive sentence bracket of twelve to thirty months or community control. Because a violation of probation was involved, the trial judge could depart upwards one bracket to 2½ to 3½ years of incarceration without providing written reasons for departure. See Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d. 14. Furthermore, the trial judge also could have applied the amendment to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701 d. 11., which permits a departure upwards one bracket without written reasons for crimes committed after July 1, 1988. The battery was committed after that date.
However, we agree that the sequencing of the sentences poses a problem in this case. The imprisonment segments of consecutive sentences cannot be interrupted by probation. See Gill v. State, 550 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1989); Calhoun v. State, 522 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); cf. Sanchez v. State, 538 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)(interrupted sentence involving community control and probation is likewise improper). Furthermore, the non-incarcerative portion of a split sentence must immediately follow the prison sanction. Lanier v. State, 504 So. 2d 501, 502-503 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Rozmestor v. State, 381 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). As in Sanchez we remand to the trial court for resentencing.
QUASH sentences; REMAND for resentencing.
COBB and GOSHORN, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(1)(f) Fla.Stat. (1987).
. § 784.07(2), Fla.Stat. (1987).
.§ 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dykes v. State, 576 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…d then ordered each sentence to run consecutive to each other. We vacate the sentences and remand for resentencing because the sentences as imposed result in consecutive periods of incarceration interrupted by probation, contrary to Turner v. State, 551 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). SENTENCES VACATED; CAUSE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur.…
-
Hall v. State, 579 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…sentences. The written sentences imposed by the trial court are invalid because these sentences as imposed result in consecutive periods of incarceration interrupted by probation. Dykes v. State, 576 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Turner v. State, 551 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). The state argues that the oral sentences are valid and that we should merely remand to correct a scrivener’s error because “verbal pronouncements prevail over clerical errors” in written sentences. See Wilkins v. State, 543 So…
-
Renaldo J. Bell v. State, 216 So. 3d 751 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…is instead delayed until after he completes the four years of probation from his other convictions, his sentence on this count is illegal because of the gap between the conclusion of his jail sentence and the start of probation. See Turner v. State, 551 So. 2d 1247, 1248 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (remanding for resentencing because “the nonincarcerative portion of a split sentence must immediately follow the prison sanction”. We find that Turner is distinguishable from the present case and affirm on this issue. In…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rozmestor v. State, 381 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Lanier v. State, 504 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Calhoun v. State, 522 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Sanchez v. State, 538 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)
- Gill v. State, 550 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)