EARL CONEY, 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 defendant sentenced to a probationary split sentence may be resentenced to any term up to the maximum upon violation of probation. A successor judge can impose the sentence.
Earl Coney challenged sentences imposed after his probation was revoked in seven cases. He was originally sentenced to probationary split sentences.…
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.
Earl Coney challenges the sentences in seven cases where his probation was revoked. In one case, the circuit court sentenced Coney to five years in prison to run consecutively with six concurrent five-year sentences.
When a defendant is sentenced to a probationary split sentence — i.e., a term of incarceration, none of which is suspended, followed by a period of probation — the defendant may be resentenced to any term up to the maximum which could have been originally imposed upon a violation of probation. See McCaskill v. State, 728 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In this case, the July 3, 2002 sentencing order demonstrates that Coney was originally sentenced to probationary split sentences, so that his consecutive sentence was proper under McCaskill. There was no double jeopardy violation. See Evans v. State, 675 So. 2d 1012, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This is not a case involving a “true split sentence,” which is a term of incarceration, a period of which is suspended subject to completion of probation. See Towbridge v. State, 564 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
We do not find that the August 28, 2002 sentencing order limited the court’s ability to sentence Coney upon a violation of probation. Also, we find no error in the successor judge sentencing appellant on the violations of probation. See Wilson v. State, 918 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Scott v. State, 909 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Finally, we find that Coney’s allegations of scoresheet errors are without merit.
Affirmed.
POLEN, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coney v. State, 995 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…08). In addition to the seven cases he has brought this year, Coney previously initi [*1041] ated a blizzard of filings in 2006 and 2007. This court affirmed Coney’s pro se direct appeal with an opinion in case number 4D05-3304. See Coney v. State, 941 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). After this court relinquished jurisdiction for the trial court to rule on Coney’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion, and the trial court denied that motion, Coney filed a notice of appeal which resulted in case number 4D06-2312. That appe…
Authorities Cited
- Evans v. State, 675 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Valcom Driver Leasing, Inc. v. West, 909 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- Montgomery v. State, 564 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- McCASKILL v. State, 728 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Wilson v. State, 918 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. & Eric Peck v. Austin Outdoor Inc., 918 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)