MARTIN DALE SMITLEY, 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 court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded for clarification of the probation order, which as written would exceed the statutory maximum sentence.
The trial court must correct the probation order to reflect that probation applies only to counts I and II, consecutive to the five-year sentence for count III, to avoid exceeding the statutory maximum.
[1] A trial court's written sentencing order that conflicts with the oral pronouncement and would exceed the statutory maximum sentence must be corrected on remand to reflect…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant entered an open no contest plea to charges resulting in a conviction and sentence that included probation and a five-year prison sentence fo…
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 Anders Review cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal, the public defender filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, *118386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We agree that there are no meritorious issues concerning the judgment of conviction and sentence entered in connection with appellant’s open no contest plea and thus affirm the same. Robinson v. State, 373 So.2d 898 (Fla.1979).
However, the trial court imposed an order of probation which reads in a way that suggests appellant was to be placed on two years of probation for counts I — III, while the transcript makes it clear that the probation was ordered for only counts I and II, consecutive to a five-year sentence for count III, a third degree felony. Imposing two years of probation for count III after the five-year sentence would cause that sentence to exceed the statutory maximum. § 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. Accordingly, we direct the trial court on remand to correct the order of probation to reflect, consistent with the oral pronouncement, that appellant is to be placed on probation with respect to only counts I and II, consecutive to his prison sentence for count III.
Affirmed, but remanded for clarification of order of probation.
WARNER, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)