CLARENCE D. TEASLEY, A/K/A CLARENCE DOUGLAS TEASLEY, 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.
Clarence Teasley appeals sentences in three criminal cases, claiming sentencing errors. The court finds multiple sentencing violations including illegal probation extensions, improper habitual offender designations, and lack of evidentiary support for habitual offender status, and reverses and remands for resentencing.
The court held that the trial court illegally extended probation beyond the five-year statutory maximum, and the five-year prison sentence imposed after the probation should have terminated is vacated. The habitual offender designation for the misdemeanor count is improper and must be deleted. The habitual offender sentences in other cases lack sufficient evidentiary support and require remand for proper findings or resentencing within guidelines.
[1] A trial court may not extend probation beyond the statutory maximum period.
[2] A sentence imposed after the statutory maximum probation period has expired is illegal, even if the sentence is one that could have been originally imposed.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A trial court may not extend probation beyond the statutory maximum.”
Establishes the fundamental rule violated in case number 84-4947 regarding the five-year statutory maximum for probation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTeasley was initially sentenced to five years' probation for burglary in July 1984. His probation was extended in July 1989 (beyond the initial term),…
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 Habitual Offender Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Clarence D. Teasley appeals his sentences in three criminal cases. We agree with Teasley that these cases contain sentencing errors.
In case number 84-4947, the trial court sentenced Teasley on July 10, 1984, to five years’ probation for burglary, a third-degree felony.
On January 18, 1989, Teasley’s probation officer filed an affidavit of violation of probation.
On July 19, 1989, the trial court extended Teasley’s probation for three years. Teasley again violated his probation on April 5, 1990, and the trial court revoked Teasley’s probation and placed Teasley on community control on June 18,1990. Teasley violated his community control in 1990, and the trial court sentenced him to five years in prison, which Teasley challenges in this appeal.
We find that the sentence is illegal, but the basis for our conclusion differs from the reason Teasley raised in this appeal. A trial court may not extend probation beyond the statutory maximum. Davis v. State, 604 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Servis v. State, 588 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
In this case, the statutory maximum was five years. § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (1983).
Because the trial court initially extended Teasley’s probation beyond July 10, 1989, the sentence imposed after that date upon revocation of community control would be illegal based on Davis and Servís. It is true that a trial court may impose any sentence which it might have imposed originally (five years’ prison in this case), § 948.06(1), Fla.Stat. (1983); however, the trial court in the instant case did not impose the five-year sentence until after the probation should have terminated.
Thus, we vacate the five-year prison sentence in case number 84-4947.
The two other cases also contain sentencing errors which require trial court action. In count four of case number 90-5483, which was a misdemeanor charge, the court erred in designating Teasley as a habitual offender. See DuBose v. State, 585 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (habitual offender status cannot be invoked for a misdemeanor).
This case must be remanded for the trial court to correct the written sentencing order by deleting the habitual offender designation for count four. In case number 88-9471 and the three remaining counts of case number 90-5483, the trial court sentenced Teasley as a habitual offender. Teasley is correct that the record contains insufficient evidence that he met the criteria for a sentence as a habitual offender. We remand these cases for the trial court either to make the required findings upon proper evidentiary support or, if the requisite prior convictions do not exist, to resentence him within the sentencing guidelines. See Alphonse v. State, 593 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
Finally, Teasley asserts that a term of probation or community control is illegal under the habitual offender statute. This court decided otherwise in King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (en banc). We certify conflict with the Fifth District’s opinion in State v. Kendrick, 596 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SEALS, JAMES H., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…without authority to extend a period of probation beyond the maximum permissible sentence for the underlying offense. Blackburn v. State, 468 So. 2d 517, 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Duchesne v. State, 616 So. 2d 172 (Fla.2d DCA 1993); Teasley v. State, 610 So. 2d 26, 27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1993); Carter v. State, 606 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Ogden v. State, 605 So. 2d 155, 158 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). In Ogden, the court explained that probation could not be extended beyond…
-
Williams v. State, 629 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…hat on revocation of community control or probation the court may impose any sentence it might originally have imposed before placing a defendant on community control. See Williams v. State, 581 So. 2d 144, 146 (Fla.1991). See also Teasley v. State, 610 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1993); Davis v. State, 604 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Williams must receive 100 days credit toward the four-year prison sentence imposed but, since he had not previously served any time on…
-
Henry v. State, 632 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…theft).2 We reverse the sentences and remand for correction of the sentencing order on the misdemeanor and for resentenc-ing on the felonies. First, a trial court cannot impose a habitual felony offender sentence on a misdemeanor. Teasley v. State, 610 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), review denied, 618 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1993). This case must be remanded for the trial court to correct the written sentencing order by deleting the habitual offender designation for the petit theft. The trial court also erred in s…
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
- King v. State, 597 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Kendrick, 596 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Servis v. State, 588 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Davis v. State, 604 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Varick F. DuBOSE v. State, 585 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- In the Interest of F.M., Jr., 585 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Alphonse v. State, 593 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)