CYNTHIA COOK, 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.
Cynthia Cook appeals the denial of her motion to correct an illegal sentence following probation violation. The court holds that the trial court imposed true split sentences and could only impose the suspended portion upon violation of the community control component, not new concurrent sentences.
The trial court's imposition of sixty-month sentences was illegal. When true split sentences are imposed, violation of the community control portion allows the trial court to impose only the balance of the suspended portion, not new concurrent sentences. Cook must be resentenced to forty-seven months in prison.
[1] A claim that a sentence imposed upon violation of community control exceeds the suspended portion of a true split sentence is cognizable under Florida Rule of Criminal Pr…
[2] Upon violation of the community control portion of a true split sentence, the trial court is limited to imposing only the balance of the suspended portion of that sentenc…
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“Such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Mack v. State, 823 So.2d 746 (Fla.2002).”
Establishes that challenges to illegal sentences based on improper split sentencing are properly brought under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a).
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCook entered a nolo contendere plea to drug charges in 1999 and initially received withheld adjudication with concurrent probation terms. After two pr…
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 Cognizable Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Cynthia Cook appeals the summary denial of her motion to correct illegal sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On February 16, 1999, Cook entered a nolo contendere plea on several drug-related charges in case numbers 98-0457 and 98-2666. The trial court withheld adjudication on all counts and sentenced Cook to time served in the county jail on two counts in case number 98-0457. On the remaining counts in ease number 98-0457 and all counts in case number 98-2666, the trial court placed Cook on concurrent terms of five years’ probation. After Cook violated her probation twice in both cases, the trial court adjudicated her guilty in both cases on June 15, 2000. The trial court sentenced Cook on each count to forty-seven months in prison, suspended, and placed her on two years’ community control followed by one year of probation to run concurrent in each case. Cook violated her community control, and the trial court sentenced her to concurrent terms of sixty months in prison on each count in both cases.
In her motion, Cook alleged that her sentences of sixty months in prison are illegal because on June 15, 2000, the trial court imposed true split sentences. She argued that upon violation of the community control portion of her sentences, the trial court could have only imposed the balance of the suspended portion of the true split sentences. We agree. See Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1988). Such a claim is cognizable under rule 3.800(a). See Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746 (Fla.2002). The record indicates that on June 15, 2000, the trial court imposed true split sentences with the suspended portion in each sentence being forty-seven months in prison. Therefore, upon violation of the community control portion of the true split sentences, the trial court was limited to only imposing the balance of the suspended portion. See Poore, 531 So. 2d at 164-65. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to resentence Cook to forty-seven months in prison on counts one and two in case number 98-0457 and on all counts in case number 98-2666.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferrell v. Al Lamberti, 987 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…o pretrial release on his pending charges. Granted in part with instructions. STEVENSON, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur. . A sentence imposed in excess of the suspended sentence may be challenged in a rule 3.800(a) motion. E.g., Cook v. State, 880 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).…
-
Burton v. State, 126 So. 3d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…statutes could possibly inflict under any set of factual circumstances.”). In this case, the defendant’s motion alleging his sentence exceeds the legal maximum because of his true split sentence is cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). See Cook v. State, 880 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Thus, the trial court should have considered the defendant’s motion on the merits, and we reverse and remand for the trial court to do so. Our decision should not be construed as an expression of this court on the merits of…
Authorities Cited
- Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1988)
- Mack v. State, 823 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 2002)