JERRY LOVETT, 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.
A trial court cannot impose a new sentence upon a probation violation that exceeds the suspended portion of the original true split sentence or the guidelines, whichever is less.
Lovett received a true split sentence of five years incarceration followed by five years probation. After serving the incarceration period, he violate…
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.
Jerry Lovett appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence after he violated the terms of his probation.
Lovett was sentenced to ten years in the Department of Corrections. This sentence was a true split sentence in that the court ordered incarceration for the first five years with the remaining five years suspended and Lovett be placed on probation instead. See Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161, 164 (Fla.1988).1
When Lovett violated probation after having served the first five years in prison, the trial court illegally sentenced him to eight years in the Department of Corrections. See Evans v. State, 703 So. 2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). When a true split sentence is imposed, the trial court is deemed to have considered the possibility of a violation of probation and cannot alter the sentence upon the violation. See Poore 531 So. 2d at 164; North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). When Lovett violated probation, the trial court could only impose a sentence for the remaining portion of the original suspended sentence or for any period within the guidelines, whichever is less. See Poore, 531 So. 2d at 164; Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Plejdrup v. State, 754 So. 2d 57, 58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Booth v. State, 754 So. 2d 155, 156 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Williams v. State, 747 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
We vacate Lovett’s sentence and remand for imposition of a sentence that does not exceed either the guidelines or the suspended portion of the original sentence, whichever is less.
SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.
THOMPSON, C.J., PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur. . Lovett actually served three years but was given early release credit for five years as a result of accumulated gain time.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 822 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…in no instance may order new incarceration that exceeds the remaining balance of the withheld or suspended portion of the original sentence.” Id. at 164. That simple rule was followed in subsequent cases in this district. See, e.g., Lovett v. State, 795 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Later cases began to indicate that the language used to. impose the new sentence is unimportant so long as the calculated term of the new sentence did not exceed the term of the suspended term of the original sentence. For exam…
-
Torres v. State, 31 So. 3d 249 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Rodriguez v. State, 822 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Lovett v. State, 795 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); see also Landeverde v. State, 769 So. 2d 457, 462 & n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). MONACO, C.J., EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (U.S. 1969)
- Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1988)
- Williams v. State, 747 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Plejdrup v. State, 754 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Evans v. State, 703 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Booth v. State, 754 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)