GREGORY EVERETT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1996-08-07
No. 94-03819
FRANK and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.
677 So. 2d 972 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second 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.


Holding

The court held that the resentencing duration impermissibly exceeded the original sentence duration.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant was resentenced after a prior remand for lewd and lascivious acts. The new sentence's duration, including incarceration and probation, excee…

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
THREADGILL, Chief Judge.

THREADGILL, Chief Judge.

In this appeal filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we review the resentencing of the appellant, Gregory Everett, after remand, as to four counts of committing a lewd and lascivious act upon a child. See Everette v. State, 640 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). While Everett’s new sentence is otherwise lawful, we conclude that its duration— including incarceration and probation — im-permissibly exceeds the total duration of the sentence originally imposed. See Thicklin v. State, 599 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Blackshear v. State, 531 So. 2d 956 (Fla.1988); Beech v. State, 436 So. 2d 82 (Fla.1983). We, therefore, once again reverse Everett’s sentence and remand for further proceedings.

We note that contrary to the trial court’s oral pronouncement, Everett’s written probation order reflects that the probationary terms imposed on counts two, three, and four in this instance are to run concurrently. If that were accurate, the sentencing scheme herein would be entirely proper. Since, however, the trial court orally pronounced at sentencing that the probationary terms imposed on counts three and four were to run consecutively to that imposed on count two, the current sentence impermissibly exceeds the original by three years.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for resentencing. Since the record reveals no remaining error, the case is affirmed in all other respects.

FRANK and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw