JOHNNIE MANGHAM, 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.
Appellate court reversed and remanded for lack of documentation in the record, though the trial court's legal conclusion that a probation period does not cap a sentence upon revocation was correct.
A probationary period does not limit the prison sentence a trial court may impose upon revocation of probation.
[1] A probationary period imposed between prison sentences does not limit the length of a prison sentence that may be imposed upon revocation of probation.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMangham received a five-and-one-half-year prison sentence followed by two years of probation, then a fifteen-year sentence upon probation revocation. …
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 Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Johnnie Mangham appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). He contends that his fifteen-year prison sentence is illegal because it was imposed after revocation of a two-year probation period that followed a five-and-one-half-year prison sentence. He appears to contend that his two-year period of probation constituted a cap on any prison sentence he could receive as the result of violating probation. We agree with the trial court that the probationary-period did not limit the sentence the court may impose upon revocation.
The trial court also correctly ruled that Mr. Mangham’s conviction for a second-degree felony would justify a fifteen-year prison sentence if the defendant received credit for time served. Unfortunately there are no attachments verifying the conviction or sentence, only a statement by the trial court that a review of the court records supports the denial of the motion. We feel confident the records support the trial court’s conclusion, but we do not have documentation in our record. We are, therefore, required to reverse and remand to the trial court to either grant the motion or deny with appropriate attachments from the record.
Reversed and remanded.
PATTERSON, C.J., and FULMER, J., concur.