LEE ANDRE REYNARD, 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.
Lee Andre Reynard appeals ten concurrent and consecutive sentences for burglary and grand theft convictions, arguing that the sentencing structure improperly allows the trial court to circumvent sentencing guidelines by imposing additional imprisonment upon probation violation without credit for time served. The court affirmed the sentences as legally valid but vacated and remanded one sentence for failure to conform the written order to the oral pronouncement.
The sentences are legal and within both statutory limits and sentencing guidelines. The appellant's argument regarding potential future probation violations is premature and speculative. However, the written sentence in case number 91-1728 does not conform to the oral pronouncement and must be vacated and remanded.
[1] A defendant's argument that a sentencing court might impose an illegal sentence in the future upon a probation violation is premature when the defendant has not yet viola…
[2] Sentences imposed by a trial court are legal if they are within the limits prescribed by statute and sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The sentences are within the legal limits prescribed by the pertinent statutes and are also within the sentencing guidelines.”
Establishes the court's holding that the sentences were legal and within bounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReynard was convicted in ten separate cases involving burglary and grand theft. The sentencing guidelines scoresheet recommended any non-state prison …
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 Credit For Time Served cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Lee Andre Reynard was sentenced in ten separate criminal cases involving convictions for burglary and grand theft. The sentencing guidelines scoresheet called for a recommended sentence of any non-state prison sanction and a permitted range of any nonstate prison sanction, community control, or up to 22 months’ incarceration. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of 22 months’ imprisonment in two of the cases, followed by three consecutive 5-year periods of probation in three other cases. The remaining sentences run concurrently with various consecutive sentences. Reynard appeals the legality of these sentences, complaining that they violate the spirit of the sentencing guidelines because the trial court, upon a violation of probation after he has served the 22 months’ imprisonment that was the maximum under the guidelines, can avoid the limitations of the guidelines by sentencing him to further imprisonment without giving any credit for the time already served on the 22-month sentence.
We find no illegality in the sentences imposed. The sentences are within the legal limits prescribed by the pertinent statutes and are also within the sentencing guidelines. Whether Appellant will violate probation after his release from prison so that the problem urged by Appellant will ever occur is purely speculative at this point. Hence, Appellant’s argument is premature. However, we note that the su preme court’s recent opinion in Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla.1993), would seem to answer the concerns raised by Appellant on this appeal should he ever violate his probation.
We agree with Appellant, however, that the written sentence in case number 91-1728 does not conform to the oral pronouncement, and the state’s brief does not contend otherwise. At the sentencing hearing, the court stated that:
In case numbers 1728 and 1729, in each case he’s adjudicated guilty and each ease he’s placed on probation for five years. In each case he will pay a statutory fee and cost of $229.00. In each case he will make restitution and in 1728 as to ... amount of $435 and 1729 it is to Steve Crooks in the amount of $285 and Ocean Underwriters in the amount of $434.46.
The court stated nothing in regard to community service hours or fees. Yet the written order of sentencing requires Appellant to work 500 hours of community service and to pay $250.00 in community service fees in case number 91-1728. Because the written sentence must conform to the oral pronouncement, and it does not do so in this case, the sentence in case number 91-1728 is vacated and that cause is remanded for entry of a sentence that conforms with the oral pronouncement. In all other respects, the sentences are affirmed.
ZEHMER, C.J., and ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stoudmire v. State, 636 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…son term was imposed, and did not exceed the statutory máximums for these offenses, the sentences are permissible. See, Petrillo v. State, 554 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Weiner v. State, 562 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); and Reynard v. State, 622 So. 2d 1026 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Ward v. State, 558 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), is not applicable here. In Ward, this court held that when a trial court imposes a sentence of incarceration for a term of years followed by a period of probation, the total se…
Authorities Cited
- Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 1993)