HUIE CHARLES THOMAS, 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.
Huie Charles Thomas appealed two consecutive four-and-a-half year sentences imposed for uttering forged instruments following his second probation violation. The court affirmed the sentences as within proper sentencing guidelines but corrected a scrivener's error crediting him with 310 years instead of 310 days.
The appellate court affirmed the sentences as proper under sentencing guidelines, finding they fell within a permissible two-cell increase from the original recommended range. However, the court modified Count I to correct the scrivener's error, changing the time credit from 310 years to 310 days.
[1] A defendant's guideline sentence may be increased by one cell for each violation of probation.
[2] Following revocation of probation, a trial court may impose any sentence it could have originally imposed, with a potential increase for probation violations.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 defendant's guideline sentence may be increased by one cell for each violation of probation.”
Establishes the legal standard for sentencing enhancements upon probation violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas was originally sentenced to five-year probationary terms for uttering forged instruments. He violated probation twice, and the trial court revo…
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 Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Huie Charles Thomas, challenges two four-and-one-half year sentences imposed for his two convictions for uttering a forged instrument following his second violation of probation. We find no error as to the issues raised by appellant. A defendant’s guideline sentence may be increased by one cell for each violation of probation. Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla.1992). Because appellant, who was originally sentenced to five-year probationary terms, did not receive a true split sentence or a term of years, the trial court was free to sentence him following the revocation to any sentence it could have originally imposed, together with a two-cell increase for appellant’s two probation violations. See Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161, 163 n. 1 (Fla.1988). While appellant’s two sentences fall within a three-cell increase from his original recommended range, they come within a two-cell increase under the permitted range and are therefore proper. Moultrie v. State, 618 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Brown v. State, 581 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA), approved, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla.1991).
Although we affirm appellant’s four-and-a-half year sentences, we nevertheless must modify appellant’s sentence as to Count I, because it contains a scrivener’s error. Although the trial court sentenced appellant to 4V2 years, with credit for 310 days previously served, the sentencing form for Count I incorrectly credits appellant with “310 years.” (The sentence for Count II correctly indicates credit for “310 days.”) We therefore strike the word “years” from the sentence and modify the sentence to reflect appellant was credited on Count I for “310 days” previously served.
AFFIRMED as modified.
ERVIN and MINER, JJ., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moddie Wells v. State, 668 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…probation or community control, thus authorizing a two-cell bump up without the necessity of written reasons of justification. See Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992); Mullins v. State, 622 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Thomas v. State, 622 So. 2d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). With the two-cell bump up, appellant could have been sentenced within the permitted range of community control or one to four and one-half years’ incarceration. Thus, the sentence imposed by the court of five years in prison ex…
Authorities Cited
- Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1988)
- Williams v. State, 594 So. 2d 273 (Fla. 1992)
- Carter v. State, 586 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1991)
- Louie Anthony Sellers v. State, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Fernandez v. Efigenia Nancy Fernandez, 578 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Chuck Brown v. State, 581 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Moultrie v. State, 618 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)