TERRY LEE HAYNES, 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 affirmed sentences for new substantive offenses but reversed sentences for probation violations because the trial court failed to credit time already served and imposed sentences at the statutory maximum without proper adjustment.
Trial court erred in imposing five-year concurrent sentences for probation violations without crediting time already served, though sentences for new substantive offenses were proper.
[1] When revoking probation for third-degree felonies with a statutory maximum of five years imprisonment, the trial court must credit the defendant for prison time already s…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was sentenced in three circuit court cases: one for new substantive offenses (case 93-3022) and two for probation violations (cases 92-1365 …
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 Statutory Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the sentences imposed in two cases following the revocation of probation and in a third case for new substantive offenses. We affirm the sentences imposed for the new substantive offenses but reverse the sentences in the two cases where probation was revoked.
At the sentencing hearing, the appellant was sentenced for a new substantive offense in circuit court case number 93-3022 and for violations of probation in circuit court case numbers 92-1365 and 87-3216. We find no error in the calculation of the scoresheet nor the sentences imposed for the new offenses in circuit court ease number 93-3022 and affirm those sentences. However, the trial court erred in imposing the concurrent sentences of five years in prison for the violations of probation in circuit court ease numbers 92-1365 and 87-3216. These sentences were improper because the statutory maximum for each of these third degree felonies was five years in prison and the trial court did not credit appellant for prison time he had already served in these cases. State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380 (Fla.1978); § 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1993). See also Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1995).
We reverse each of the five year prison sentences in circuit court case numbers 92-1365 and 87-3216 and remand for resentencing.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Holmes, 360 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1978)
- Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1995)