JOHN ARCH, 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 combined sentences of prison and probation for grand theft exceeded the statutory maximum, rendering them illegal. It also held that costs and fees were improperly imposed without notice.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to grand theft and guilty to burglaries. The trial court imposed sentences for grand theft that, when combined with …
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 Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Acting Chief Judge.
The appellant challenges his sentences for grand theft, contending that they exceed the statutory maximum and are therefore illegal. The appellant also contends error in the imposition of costs and fees without proper notice. We agree with these contentions, but we find no merit in the appellant’s second point on appeal.
Pursuant to a plea bargain, the appellant entered nolo contendere pleas to three counts of grand theft and guilty pleas to additional counts, including burglaries. The trial court sentenced the appellant to four years in prison followed by five years’ probation on each count and imposed costs and fees without notice. All sentences were to be served concurrently.
The statutory maximum for grand theft, a third-degree felony, is five years. § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1987). Therefore, the combined sentences of prison and probation for each third-degree felony exceeded the statutory maximum and are illegal. Baldwin v. State, 558 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Jones v. State, 474 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
We reject the state’s argument that no harmful sentencing error has occurred because the appellant’s burglary convictions carry maximum fifteen-year sentences and, consequently, the appellant’s total time in jail will be measured by those valid sentences. The supreme court has prohibited the imposition of general sentences for several offenses. Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla.1977).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgments, but reverse the sentences for grand theft and remand for resentencing as to those offenses. We strike any costs and fees imposed herein without prejudice to the state to seek reimposition after proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
Reversed and remanded with directions consistent herewith.
PARKER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Costin v. State, 46 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…ould serve if she were sentenced to the maximum penalty for each crime and ordered to serve that time consecutively. However, this fact does not justify the sentences, which are each in excess of the statutory maximum, as explained in Arch v. State, 572 So. 2d 1017, 1017 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Accordingly, although we affirm the judgments, we must reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. KAHN, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ„ concur.…
-
Troup v. State, 574 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…g in Case No. 88-428 is harmless error also because the term of incarceration (twenty years) is concurrent with the proper habitual offender sentence of twenty years in Case No. 88-667. Recently this court rejected a similar argument. Arch v. State, 572 So. 2d 1017 (Fla.2d DCA 1991). In that case, the defendant received an illegal sentence of four years in prison followed by five years probation on each of three counts of grand theft. He also received fifteen year sentences on burglary convictions. All sentenc…
Authorities Cited
- Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)
- Baldwin v. State, 558 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Jones v. State, 474 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)