JAMES WILLIAM HAYES, 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 held that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion to correct sentence without adequate record support.
Hayes alleged his 1988 sentence violated the Poore v. State sentencing cap for split sentences. The trial court denied the motion, stating Hayes did n…
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.
James William Hayes appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence. We reverse.
The motion claims a violation of Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1988), allegedly occurring when Hayes was sentenced in 1988 for violation of probation. Specifically, Hayes alleges that he was serving, prior to that time, a “true” split sentence, and that the trial court, when revoking the probationary portion of that sentence, exceeded the cap imposed by Poore by giving Hayes a new prison sentence longer than the suspended portion of the previous sentence.
The trial court’s order states that Hayes did not receive a “true” split sentence. Unfortunately, the order is not accompanied by attachments from the record which document this finding. Accordingly, we remand this case for further proceedings. If the records in this case conclusively demonstrate that Hayes’s present sentence does not violate Poore, the trial court may again deny the motion, but should attach to its order the supporting documentation. Otherwise it may be necessary to resentence Hayes.
Reversed.
HALL, A.C.J., and THREADGILL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.