SCOTT CARD, 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.
Scott Card appealed his conviction and sentences for aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer, obstructing with violence, and criminal mischief. The court affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing because the sentences imposed upon probation violation exceeded statutory maximums and the permissible sentences for a true split sentence violation.
The court affirmed Card's judgments of conviction but reversed the sentences because they exceeded both the statutory maximum sentences for third-degree felonies and the permissible sentences upon violation of a true split sentence. The case was remanded for resentencing.
[1] A sentence imposed upon a violation of probation may not exceed the statutory maximum sentence for the original offense.
[2] A trial court's failure to timely rule on a motion to correct sentencing errors pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) may be grounds for appellate re…
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“These terms of imprisonment obviously exceeded the terms permitted upon violation of the probationary portion of Mr. Card's true split sentences.”
Establishes that the trial court imposed sentences that violated the legal limits applicable to true split sentence violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn June 2001, Card was charged with aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer, obstructing with violence, and criminal mischief resulting in dam…
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 Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Scott Card appeals his judgments and sentences, which were imposed on violation of probation. We affirm the judgments. The State correctly concedes error concerning the sentences. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for resentencing.
For events occurring in June 2001, the State charged Mr. Card with aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer,1 obstructing with violence,2 and criminal mischief resulting in damage in excess of $1000.3 He entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced on each count to a true split sentence of fifty months’ incarceration, suspended after eighteen months’ incarceration, with the remainder of the sentence served as a thirty-six-month term of probation.4 All sentences were to run concurrently.
Thereafter, in May 2003, Mr. Card committed new law violations, which resulted in a violation of his probation in this case. The trial court revoked Mr. Card’s probation 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 a sentence in excess of the five-year statutory maximum.
Mr. Card’s appellate attorney filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) to correct these mistakes, but the trial court failed to resolve that motion in a timely fashion. The State conceded the sentencing error both in its trial court filing and in its brief to this court.
Accordingly, we reverse Mr. Card’s sentences and remand for the trial court to impose lawful sentences.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ., Concur. . § 784.07(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2001).
. § 843.01, Fla. Stat. (2001).
. § 806.13(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2001).
. We note that fifty months’ incarceration suspended after eighteen months leaves a suspended portion of thirty-two months, not thirty-six. However, a split sentence where the period of supervision exceeds the suspended portion of the prison sentence is proper nonetheless. See Chupka v. State, 775 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)…beginning of 2004: Brown v. State, 893 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Santiago v. State, 893 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Washington v. State, 890 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); King v. State, 891 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Card v. State, 889 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Walker v. State, 886 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Long v. State, 886 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Stewart v. State, 884 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Wilson v. State, 884 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Ellis v. State, 881…
Authorities Cited
- Covert v. State, 775 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Beltran v. State, 854 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)