IVEN B. JONES, 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 defendant's community control had expired before the affidavit of violation was filed, thus the conviction for violation must be reversed.
The defendant was sentenced to a one-year term of community control, with credit for 100 days served. The affidavit of violation was filed after this …
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 Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Iven B. Jones entered into a negotiated plea involving violations of community control on two separate offenses — aggravated battery and grand theft auto. He was sentenced to four years and six months in the Department of Corrections on the aggravated battery charge and to nineteen months (the maximum under the guidelines) on the grand theft auto. He appeals his conviction for violation of community control on the aggravated battery case. He contends that this community control had expired before the affidavit of violation was filed. We agree and reverse.
Athough this case is somewhat complicated because of the number of crimes committed and sentences of community control imposed, the bottom line is that on March 30, 1995, the court sentenced Jones on a previous violation of the aggravated battery community control to “a new term of community control for one year. You have credit for time served of a hundred days.” Deducting this 100 days from the one year term of community control, this sentence would end in December, 1995. The affidavit of violation was not filed until March, 1996. Mr. Jones has done a lot of things but violating the conditions of this particular sentence of community control is not one of them. See State v. Hall, 641 So. 2d 403 (Fla.1994).
Since this was a negotiated sentence involving two separate offenses, we would normally remand for new sentencing giving the trial judge the option to reconsider the sentence imposed on the other case in light of the reversal. However, since the court imposed the maximum sentence on the remaining charge, a new sentencing does not seem necessary.
REVERSED.
PETERSON, C.J., and THOMPSON, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jett v. State, 722 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…ns occur at or near the end of the probationary term. We decline to do so. State v. Hall, 641 So. 2d 403, 404 (Fla.1994). See Boyd v. State, 699 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Izquierdo v. State, 693 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Jones v. State, 688 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Delaughter v. State, 664 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Davis v. State, 623 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Aguiar v. State, 593 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In originally pronouncing sentence in Case No. 91-774 (among other…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hall, 641 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1994)