TERRY VAN ROYAL, 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.
Terry Van Royal appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that he received a true split sentence (suspended prison term with probation) but was illegally sentenced to five and one-half years in prison upon probation violation. The court reversed and remanded, holding that if Royal received a true split sentence as alleged, he could be sentenced to no more than the suspended portion (two years) upon violation.
If Royal received a true split sentence as alleged, the trial court could impose at most a sentence equal to the suspended portion (two years) upon violation. The five and one-half year sentence would thus be illegal. The case is remanded for the trial court to review the oral pronouncement of sentence to determine if a true split sentence was actually imposed.
[1] A true split sentence may be imposed where the entire period of incarceration is suspended and the probationary period does not equal the suspended period.
[2] A true split sentence is defined as a total period of confinement with a portion of the confinement period suspended and the defendant placed on probation for that suspen…
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 intelligence“a true split sentence may be imposed in which the entire period of incarceration is suspended and in which the probationary period does not equal the suspended period”
Establishes the definition and permissibility of true split sentences under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRoyal claimed he originally received a two-year suspended prison sentence followed by two years of community control and two years of probation. Upon …
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 True Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Terry Van Royal appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). Royal alleges that he received a true split sentence in which the court withheld imposition of a two-year prison sentence and placed Royal on two years of community control followed by two years of probation. Upon violating his probation, Royal was sentenced to five and one-half years’ prison.
If Royal’s explanation of his original sentence is accurate, then he is correct that he received a true split sentence. See State v. Powell, 703 So. 2d 444 (Fla.1997) (clarifying that a true split sentence may be imposed in which the entire period of incarceration is suspended and in which the probationary period does not equal the suspended period); Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1988) (defining a true split sentence as one consisting of a total period of confinement with a portion of the confinement period suspended and the defendant placed on probation for that suspended portion).
Royal is also correct that upon violation of the probationary period of a true split sentence, the trial court could sentence him at most to the suspended portion of the sentence — in this case two years. See Poore. The five and one-half year sentence would thus be illegal. See Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
The trial court denied this claim stating that Royal did not receive a true split sentence but simply received a straight probationary sentence of two years’ community control followed by two years’ probation. In support of this conclusion, the trial court attached the written sentencing document. That document does not, however, refute Royal’s claim that he received a suspended sentence. In fact, although it is somewhat ambiguous, it suggests that Royal is correct that he was sentenced to two years’ prison, which was suspended, and two years of community control followed by two years’ probation.
Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order on this point and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court should review the oral pronouncement of sentence to determine whether a true split sentence was imposed. See, e.g., A.S. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that where there is a difference between the court’s oral pronouncement and the written order, the oral pronouncement controls). If in fact a true split sentence was imposed, as alleged by Royal, then he must be resentenced to a total sentence of no more than two years. We affirm the balance of the trial court’s order without comment.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
BLUE, A.C.J., and SALCINES and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Leathers v. State, 801 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…his sentence was illegal because the trial court, upon revocation of probation, imposed a greater prison sentence than the suspended prison sentence that was originally imposed. This claim is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Royal v. State, 760 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In the body of the motion, Leathers claimed that his prison sentence was in excess of the suspended sentence because he was not given prison credit for the time he spent on probation prior to the revocation. Leathers is not entit…
Authorities Cited
- Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1988)
- State v. Powell, 703 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1997)
- Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- A.S. v. State, 714 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)