CURTIS COLLINGTON, 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 affirmed the conviction for robbery but reversed and remanded the sentencing due to conflicting and unclear sentencing documents that failed to clearly establish whether the defendant received incarceration, probation, or a split sentence.
A sentencing must be clarified and corrected when the record contains conflicting documents regarding whether the defendant received incarceration, probation, or a split sentence.
[1] Sentencing documents that conflict regarding whether a defendant received incarceration, probation, or a split sentence must be clarified and corrected on remand.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant Collington was prosecuted in two cases: Case No. 90-12004 for grand theft and Case No. 90-1114 for robbery. The sentencing documents contain…
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 Incarceration cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
We find no error in this case except in the sentencing of defendant. Defendant was sentenced in two cases: Case No. 90-12004, a prosecution for grand theft, and Case No. 90-1114 a prosecution for robbery, which is the subject of this appeal. The amended probation order in 90-1114 indicates defendant was placed on 5 years probation for the robbery offense consecutive to Department of Corrections time and concurrent with probation in Case No. 90-12004. The scoresheet notes show seven years incarceration and five years of concurrent probation in each case. The transcript of the sentencing, however, reflects that the trial court orally imposed straight incarceration of seven years for the robbery offense, and imposed probation only in reference to the grand theft. The record also contains a “court minutes/order” but it only references five years probation, with no mention of incarceration. Indeed, we can find no written sentence of incarceration in this case. It is unclear whether the defendant received a split sentence, a straight term of incarceration, or only a term of probation for this robbery. Accordingly, we remand for clarification and correction of this sentence. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
COWART, J., concurs.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially with opinion.
DAUKSCH, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur that appellant must be resen-tenced. However, I am of the opinion the trial judge must comply with section 39.-lll(7)(c) and (d) when he imposes sentence on this underage appellant. Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Broome v. State, 466 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lang v. State, 566 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Broome v. State, 466 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)