CURTIS BERNARD FORD, 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.
Curtis Bernard Ford appeals his twelve-year sentence imposed after revocation of probation in a 1987 theft case. The court affirmed, holding that Ford was not entitled to credit for time served on a related concurrent sentence when probation was revoked, because probation rather than incarceration had been imposed in the case where the violation occurred.
The court held that Ford was not entitled to credit for time served on case number 87-928 when sentence was imposed for probation violation in case number 87-939, because the trial court imposed only probation (not incarceration) in case number 87-939 originally, and thus no credit was allowable when sentence was imposed after violation.
[1] A defendant is not entitled to credit for time served on a prior sentence when probation is revoked and a new sentence is imposed, if no period of incarceration was origi…
[2] A trial court may impose a consecutive sentence following revocation of probation, even if the total incarceration time exceeds the original guideline range, provided the…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Since no period of incarceration was imposed in 87-939, no credit was allowable when sentence was imposed after violation of probation.”
Establishes the core holding that credit for time served is only applicable when incarceration is imposed in the case being sentenced.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1987, Ford was convicted of theft and dealing in stolen property in two separate cases. He received a nine-year incarceration sentence in one case …
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 Departure Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Curtis Bernard Ford appeals his sentence imposed following revocation of probation for an admitted probation violation. We affirm.
In 1987, Ford was convicted of theft and dealing in stolen property in each of two separate cases bearing trial court filing numbers 87-928 and 87-939. A single score sheet was used for the two cases, and he was sentenced to nine years’ incarceration in case number 87-928 and to ten years’ probation in ease number 87-939 consecutive to the period of incarceration in case number 87-928. He was released from incarceration on May 26, 1989, having served less than two years of the nine-year sentence, and on December 7, 1990, he was charged with violating the conditions of probation in case number 87-939 by not remaining gainfully employed, filing untruthful reports, testing positive for use of both marijuana and cocaine, and failing to pay restitution and supervisory fees. Ford was sentenced to an additional period of twelve years’ incarceration after admitting the violations. When he was sentenced in case number 87-939 after violation of probation, he was not given credit for the time served on case number 87-928, and he argues that the nine years already served and the additional twelve years now imposed are, in reality, a departure sentence of twenty-one years.
This case is still another example of the traps into which the unwary may stumble in sentencing under the guideline rules. The traps do not discriminate; either a defendant or the state may fall into one. In the instant case, if originally Ford had been sentenced to incarceration followed by probation in case number 87-939, the period of incarceration could not have exceeded the score sheet guideline range of nine years and would have had to be concurrent with the sentence and incarceration imposed in case number 87-928. White v. State, 489 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12).
A violation of probation after serving nine years would then have allowed the court to use the one cell bump-up and sentence Ford to twelve years, but with credit for the nine years served.
The trial court chose not to sentence in this fashion and imposed only probation in case number 87-939 following incarceration in case number 87-928. Since no period of incarceration was imposed in 87-939, no credit was allowable when sentence was imposed after violation of probation. This clever use of the tool of probation in this case where a long history of continuing criminal activity exists should have acted as an incentive to Ford to comply with the conditions of probation, conditions which usually are no more burdensome than those conditions which law-abiding citizens customarily and routinely live with in their walks through life. Ford chose to promptly ignore those conditions after release from incarceration, and the trial court refused to allow credit for the time served in case number 87-928, which bears no relationship to case number 87-939 other than having been included in the same score sheet when originally sentenced.
The trial court properly applied the rule plainly set forth in State v. Folsom, 552 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)…of two separate convictions and that Tripp was not entitled to credit for time served on the first conviction after the revocation of probation for the second conviction. Accord Sylvester v. State, 572 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ford v. State, 572 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Pacheco v. State, 565 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), review denied, 576 So. 2d 289 (Fla.1991); Harris v. State, 557 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); State v. Folsom, 552 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Rodgers, 540 So. 2…
-
State v. Tripp, 591 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…e sentence and remand for resen-tencing without jail credit for time served on the separate conviction. Our decision follows similar decisions of the Fourth and Fifth Districts. Sylvester v. State, 572 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Ford v. State, 572 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); State v. Folsom, 552 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989); State v. Rodgers, 540 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Because the sentencing method approved in this case is not expressly recognized in Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1…
-
Sylvester v. State, 572 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…ht probation term for another offense, the application of the sentencing guidelines in resen-tencing following revocation of probation can lead to a harsher penalty than if split sentences had been imposed originally for each offense. Ford v. State, 572 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Folsom, 552 So. 2d 1194. Sylvester correctly argues that the court violated his double jeopardy rights by sentencing him again for the two counts of grand theft since he had already served the sentence for these two offenses; n…
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
- White v. State, 489 So. 2d 115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- State v. Folsom, 552 So. 2d 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)