BOBBY GONZALEZ, 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 portion of the sentence was illegal due to exceeding statutory maximums, but another claim regarding probation duration required a factual hearing not suitable for direct appeal.
[1] A defendant is entitled to credit for time served when the total sentence, including prior incarceration, exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense.
[2] A claim that probation or community control exceeded the statutory maximum is not cognizable on direct appeal if factual determinations are required to resolve the claim.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBobby Gonzalez appealed an order revoking his probation and imposing a 30-month sentence, arguing his sentences exceeded statutory maximums for third-…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Bobby Gonzalez (Gonzalez) appeals a 1996 order revoking his probation and giving him a straight incareerative sentence of 30 months. We affirm in part, and reverse in part.
Gonzalez argues for the first time to this court that his sentences are illegal in two respects: 1) as of February 1994, he had already served the five-year statutory maximum on probation or community control for his third degree felonies in case numbers 88-4717 and 89-5211, and therefore any probation or community control he served beyond that time was illegal; and 2) in case number 88-4717, his recent sentence of 30 months, together with time previously spent incarcerated, exceeded the five-year statutory maximum for his third degree felony by 10 days. The state concedes he is correct as to the second issue, and therefore we reverse and remand with directions that he be credited with 10 days in that case.
As to the first issue, however, the record does not conclusively show that Gonzalez served more than the five-year statutory maximum on probation or community control before his most recent term of probation was revoked, because it is unclear exactly what date some of the terms of probation or community control began and whether he ab sconded during any of those periods on probation or community control. A hearing is required to make these factual determinations as to whether Gonzalez’ allegations are true, which would have divested the trial court of jurisdiction to revoke his probation. See Francois v. State, 695 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1997). Because only sentencing errors apparent from the face of the record are cognizable on direct appeal, see, State v. Montague, 682 So. 2d 1085 (Fla.1996), we must affirm. Our affirmance on this issue, however, is without prejudice to Gonzalez timely raising it by a motion which complies with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
Affirmed in part, and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
MINER, ALLEN and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ortiz v. State, 72 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…him on community control. This claim is not supported by the record because the record does not indicate when Ortiz began serving his probation or when his probation expired; thus, this issue requires an eviden-tiary hearing. See Gonzalez v. State, 705 So. 2d 954, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). Therefore, we affirm without prejudice to any right Ortiz may have to raise this claim in a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See id. Feagin v. State, 938 So. 2d 623, 624…
Authorities Cited
- Francois v. State, 695 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1997)
- State v. Montague, 682 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1996)