SHANE LEVON JOSEPH, A/K/A JOSEPH LEVON SHANE, 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 probation cannot be imposed concurrently with a sentence of incarceration, and the trial court's sentencing order was illegal.
Shane Joseph pleaded guilty to multiple felony counts and received concurrent sentences involving incarceration and probation. He filed a motion to co…
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 Incarceration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Shane Levon Joseph appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion to correct illegal sentence in circuit court case number 93-15813.1 We reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing.
Joseph pleaded guilty to fifteen felony counts in one information. Because of the attachments to the motion, we address only counts one through thirteen. The court sentenced Joseph to twenty-two years in prison on count one, suspended after twenty years, followed by two years’ probation. On counts two through nine, eleven and twelve, the court sentenced Joseph to twenty-two years in prison, suspended after three years, followed by nineteen years’ probation on each count. The court sentenced Joseph on count ten to fifteen years in prison, with a three-year minimum mandatory. On count thirteen, the court sentenced Joseph to twenty-two years in prison, suspended after twenty years, followed by two years’ probation. All of the sentences were to run concurrently.
It is well settled that probation cannot be imposed concurrently with a sentence of incarceration. See Benjamin v. State, 705 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The trial court’s order denying Joseph’s motion to correct illegal sentence reflects that the sentencing court intended all of the probation periods to start at the same time, thus avoiding any conflict with the incarcerative portions of the sentences. Such an interpretation is impossible. The probation period on counts two through nine, eleven and twelve should begin after Joseph serves three years in prison. At that time, however, he would still be incarcerated on counts one, eleven and thirteen, in violation of Benjamin.
Reversed and remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur. . Although Joseph's motion lists sixteen case numbers, the record contains only the judgments and sentences for counts one through thirteen of case number 93-15813. Thus, we are limited to reviewing case number 93-15813.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flowers v. State, 899 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…The State responds the sentence is legal.2 We agree. A defendant may not be sentenced to prison and community supervision where the community supervision is scheduled to commence prior to the completion of the term of imprisonment. Joseph v. State, 752 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). A review of the court’s oral pronouncement and written orders in this case, however, reveals the terms of community control and probation did not begin to run until the defendant’s release. Specifically, the orders of community c…
-
Joseph v. Cal Henderson, 834 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ause we conclude that the statute as applied violates Joseph’s right to equal protection and substantive due process. We reject all other issues raised in the petition. After this court ordered a new sentencing hearing for him, see Joseph v. State, 752 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), Joseph was returned to the Hillsborough County Jail from state prison. Upon admittance, he was charged a $20 booking fee, which he protested through the inmate grievance procedure. The sheriffs response to the grievance stated: “…
-
Marshall v. State, 992 So. 2d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…nsecutively to the sentence for the burglary count, the trial court essentially ran a prison sentence (for the theft) concurrently with probation (for the credit card offense). Such a combination constitutes an illegal sentence. See Joseph v. State, 752 So. 2d 656, 656 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“It is well settled that probation cannot be imposed concurrently with a sentence of incarceration.”). We therefore remand for the court to resentence Marshall for the fraudulent use of a credit card count. Reversed and re…
Authorities Cited
- Benjamin v. State, 705 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)