GARY GARDNER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1996-04-04
No. 95-793
GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
670 So. 2d 1185 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1996)

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.

Synopsis

Gary Gardner appealed sentences imposed following his plea of nolo contendere to three counts of probation violation, arguing the sentences exceeded statutory maximums. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the sentences and remanded for resentencing, finding the trial court impermissibly imposed community control sentences that, when combined with previously served time, exceeded the statutory maximum penalties for the underlying offenses.


Holding

The court held that the sentences violated statutory maximums for all three counts. The five-year maximum for the third-degree felony was exceeded when two years of community control was imposed after approximately three and a half years of prior prison time and probation. The misdemeanor sentences also exceeded one-year and 60-day maximums respectively. Additionally, the written sentence for Count II conflicting with the oral pronouncement of time served required remand for resentencing.


Headnotes

[1] A written sentence that exceeds the maximum punishment allowable by law for the offense constitutes a fundamental sentencing error.

[2] A trial court's written sentence imposing a greater punishment than orally pronounced in open court is contrary to the court's pronouncement and may be reversed.

Previewing 2 of 5 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

Key Quotes

“Where the defendant originally receives a split sentence of prison time and probation, and then is sentenced to community control following a revocation of probation, a court must take into account all time previously served in prison and on probation, so that the total term of probation, community control and jail time imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum.”

Establishes the governing legal standard for sentencing after probation revocation when prior split sentences were imposed

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Gardner was originally sentenced to four years in prison followed by one year of probation on Count I (attempted shooting into an occupied vehicle, a …

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.


Opinion of the Court
THOMPSON, Judge.

THOMPSON, Judge.

Gary Gardner appeals the sentences imposed after his plea of nolo contendere to three counts of violation of probation. Gardner argues that the sentences exceed the statutory maximum and, therefore, are illegal. Further, the written sentence as to one of the counts was inconsistent with the oral pronouncement. We reverse.

The three underlying offenses were: Count I, attempted shooting into or throwing a missile into an occupied vehicle, a felony of the third degree; Count II, criminal mischief, a misdemeanor of the first degree; and, Count III, assault, a misdemeanor of the second degree. Initially, Gardner was sentenced to four years incarceration followed by one year of probation on Count I and one year of probation on Counts II and III. All sentences were to be served concurrently. After his probation was revoked on these charges, the trial court sentenced Gardner to two years of community control on each count, all sentences to run concurrently.

The sentence for Count I exceeds the five year statutory maximum sentence1 which may be imposed for a felony of the third degree. Where the defendant originally receives a split sentence of prison time and probation, and then is sentenced to community control following a revocation of probation, a court must take into account all time previously served in prison and on probation, so that the total term of probation, community control and jail time imposed does not exceed the statutory maximum. Shoda v. State, 666 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1996); Waters v. State, 662 So. 2d 332 (Fla.1995); State v. Roundtree, 644 So. 2d 1358 (Fla.1994); State v. Summers, 642 So. 2d 742 (Flá.1994); Beagling v. State, 667 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Gardner v. State, 656 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).2 Here, by sentencing Gardner to two years community control on Count I, after he had already served approximately three and a half years in prison and additional time on probation, the trial court went beyond the five year permissible maximum.

The trial court also exceeded the statutory maximum when it sentenced Gardner to two years community control on Counts II and III. The maximum sentence is one year in the county jail or one year probation for a misdemeanor of the first degree, sections 806.13(l)(b)2 & 775.082(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1989), and 60 days for a misdemeanor of the second degree, sections 784.011(2) & 775.082(4)(b), Florida Statutes (1989). Gardner is entitled to credit for the time previously served on probation. Bennett v. State, 664 So. 2d 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Mathis v. State, 649 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

Also, as to Count II, the trial court orally stated that Gardner would be sentenced to time served. However, the written sentence placed Gardner on two years community control. A written sentence that conflicts with an oral sentence must be remanded for resentencing. Justice v. State, 658 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Alexander v. State, 643 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction but reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing.

AFFIRM conviction; REVERSE sentences; REMAND for resentencing.

GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur. . §§ 775.082(3)(d), 777.04(4)(c) and 790.19, Fla. Stat. (1989).

. However, because the underlying offenses in this case were committed on November 22, 1990, the trial court is not required to credit Gardner with gain time against his subsequent sentence. § 948.06(6), Fla.Stat. (1989); see generally Tripp v. State, 622 So. 2d 941, 942 n. 2 (Fla.1993); Bland v. State, 664 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited (13 total)

View all 13 cited authorities →

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw