WALLACE JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed convictions for receiving stolen property and uttering a forged instrument but vacated sentences because multiple counts arising from a single transaction cannot result in concurrent sentences for each count, and probationary periods cannot follow incarceration.
When an information contains multiple counts that are facets of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed—for the highest offense—and probationary periods cannot follow a period of incarceration.
[1] When an information charges multiple counts that are facets or phases of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed, and that sentence must be for the highest…
[2] A probationary period cannot legally follow a period of incarceration.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant presented a stolen check to a grocery store manager for cashing, resulting in charges for buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property a…
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 Single Transaction Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant was informed against for (1) buying, receiving, or concealing stolen property and (2) uttering a forged instrument, tried by jury, found guilty of both counts and sentenced to serve eleven months in the county jail on each count (to run concurrently) followed by a period of three years probation. Defendant appeals the sentences entered upon the guilty verdicts.
The instant charges arose when the defendant presented a stolen check to the manager of a grocery store for cashing. We find the sentence improper in two respects. First, as in the case sub jud-ice where the information contained more than one count, but each count was a facet or phase of the same transaction, only one sentence may be imposed, and the sentence which should be imposed is for the highest offense charged. Yost v. State, Fla.App. 1971, 243 So. 2d 469. Second, the provision in the respective sentences for a probationary period are patently illegal for the reasons cited by this court in Hutchins v. State, Fla.App.1973, 286 So. 2d 244.
The convictions are affirmed, but the sentences are hereby vacated and this cause is remanded with directions that the defendant-appellant be presented to the trial court and properly sentenced in accord herewith.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sturn v. State, 295 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…. Dancy v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1972, 259 So. 2d 208; Robinson v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1972, 256 So. 2d 390; Martinez v. State, Fla.App. 3rd, 1972, 266 So. 2d 392; Boyd v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1973, 272 So. 2d 858; Jackson v. State, Fla.App.3rd, 1974, 293 So. 2d 136…
-
Eaton v. State, 307 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…directions to discharge the defendant-appellant as to the five year sentence which followed his revocation of probation. Reversed and remanded. . Defendant’s attempt to cash a stolen check at a package store. . See Jackson v. State, Fla.App.1974, 293 So. 2d 136.…
Authorities Cited
- Yost v. State, 243 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
- Hutchins v. State, 286 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)