GEORGE FELDER, 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 a habitual offender probation term can follow a prison sentence, even if it is for a separate offense.
Appellant challenged his prison sentence on one offense and a consecutive habitual offender probation term on another offense. He argued this was impr…
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 Collateral Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
On this appeal from the denial of a motion for collateral relief which the trial court construed to be a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), the appellant challenges his prison sentence on one offense followed by a habitual offender probation term on another offense. He argues that these sentences are improper under the holding of this court in Burrell v. State, 610 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
The holding in Btvrrell does indeed support the appellant’s position. However, since the decision in Burrell, the Florida Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion in State v. Tito, 616 So. 2d 39 (Fla.1993). In that case Tito had been sentenced to a five-year upward departure sentence in one case and a consecutive five-year upward departure sentence in a second case, followed by a habitual offender sentence of ten years’ probation in a third case, consecutive to the sentence in the second case. Tito contended that he could not be placed on probation as a habitual offender. The supreme court said that it found no abuse of discretion in placing Tito on ten years’ probation after completing his prior sentence.
Tito, in effect, overruled this court’s decision in Burrell. Accordingly, we affirm. Nothing in this court’s decisions in Branton v. State, 620 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), and Pankhurst v. State, 632 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), should be construed as expressing a rule different from that in Tito which, of course, this court may not do.
Affirmed.
PATTERSON and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rolland Allen Burrell v. State, 610 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Tito, 616 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1993)
- Branton v. State, 620 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Pankhurst v. State, 632 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)