RICHARD HOLLIMON, 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 trial court cannot impose a new incarceration sentence exceeding the remaining balance of the original suspended portion of a true split sentence.
Hollimon received a true split sentence for second-degree murder, serving part and having the rest suspended as probation. After violating 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 Resentencing Limitations cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Judge.
Hollimon challenges his resentencing upon violation of probation. Hollimon pled guilty to murder in the second degree. On November 22, 1983, the trial court sentenced him to ten years’ incarceration, the last five years of which were suspended and to be served as probation — a “true” split sentence. After having served the incarcerative portion of the sentence, Holli-mon was placed on probation.
By affidavit dated June 28, 1988, he was charged with violations of probation to which he pled nolo contendere. Upon revocation of probation, the trial judge sentenced Hollimon to seventeen years’ incarceration, a sentence falling within the guidelines.
Hollimon contends that the trial court was limited to a sentence not to exceed the unserved balance of the original ten years’ sentence. We agree. After having received a “true” split sentence, the trial court “in no instance may order new incarceration that exceeds the remaining balance of the withheld or suspended portion of the original sentence.” Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161, 164 (Fla.1988).
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
HALL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.