ANDREW BELTRAN, 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 appellate court reversed a probation violation sentence, holding that a trial court cannot impose a new incarceration term exceeding the original suspended sentence after a probation revocation. This clarifies sentencing limits for true split sentences.
No, the trial court erred in sentencing Beltran to a term greater than his original suspended sentence after his probation was revoked. The new incarceration cannot exceed the remaining balance of the suspended term.
[1] Upon revocation of probation for a true split sentence, a trial court may not order new incarceration that exceeds the remaining balance of the suspended term.
[2] A true split sentence allows for the entire period of incarceration to be suspended.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We reverse because the trial court erred in sentencing Beltran to a term greater than his suspended sentence after his probation was revoked.”
States the primary reason for reversing the lower court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrew Beltran pleaded guilty to robbery charges and received suspended sentences as a youthful offender. After violating probation, the trial court i…
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
WHATLEY, Judge.
Andrew Beltran appeals the sentence he received after he was found to have violated his probation. Beltran was originally charged in two separate cases with robbery with a firearm and robbery with a weapon. He entered a guilty plea to both offenses and was sentenced as a youthful offender to seventy-two months in prison, suspended, and seventy-two months of probation. Thereafter, the trial court found that Beltran had violated his probation and it sentenced him to forty years in prison for the case involving robbery with a firearm and to thirty years in prison for the robbery with a weapon case. We reverse because the trial court erred in sentencing Beltran to a term greater than his suspended sentence after his probation was revoked.
Both of Beltran’s original sentences were true split sentences. See State v. Powell, 703 So. 2d 444, 446 (Fla.1997) (holding that a trial court can impose a true split sentence in which the entire period of incarceration is suspended). In a true split sentence, upon a violation of probation, the trial court may not order new incarceration that exceeds the remaining balance of the suspended term. Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161, 165 (Fla.1988) (holding that after the appellant, who was originally sentenced as a youthful offender, violated his probation, the trial court could not order new incarceration that exceeded the remaining balance of the suspended portion of the original sentence); see also Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Singleton v. State, 633 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); cf. Crews v. State, 779 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Here, the trial court could not sentence Beltran to a term greater than the seventy-two month term that was originally suspended.
Accordingly, we reverse Beltran’s sentences and remand for the trial court to impose a sentence not in excess of seventy-two months in prison in both cases.
Convictions affirmed; sentences reversed and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Card v. State, 889 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…bation and sentenced him to three concurrent fifteen-year terms of incarceration. These terms of imprisonment obviously exceeded the terms permitted upon violation of the probationary portion of Mr. Card’s true split sentences. See Beltran v. State, 854 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Moreover, the fifteen-year terms for obstructing with violence and criminal mischief in excess of $1000 exceeded the statutory maximum sentences for these third-degree felony offenses, and Mr. Card’s scoresheet did not authorize…
-
Stanley v. State, 975 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…nces because they exceed the suspended sentences of 37.75 months imposed in October 1994 and the 1994 guidelines range. We agree that the trial court erred in imposing sentences greater than the 37.75-month suspended sentences. See Beltran v. State, 854 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Leathers v. State, 801 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We therefore reverse the sentences and remand for resentencing. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur. . The record reflects that du…
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)
- Crews v. State, 779 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Hunter v. State, 779 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Freeman A. Singleton v. State, 633 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)