JOHN MICHAEL HADDON, 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.
Affirmed conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and destruction of property, but vacated the general five-year sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court imposed a single sentence on both charges without specifying the allocation between offenses.
A general sentence imposed on multiple charges without specification of the portion attributable to each offense is reversible error and requires remand for resentencing.
[1] A trial court's imposition of a single general sentence on multiple charges without specification of the portion attributable to each offense is reversible error requirin…
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 intelligenceA service station was broken into by shattering a plate glass window. The defendant was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a mis…
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 Breaking And Entering With Intent To Commit A Misdemeanor cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Judge.
Appellant appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor and destruction of personal property of a value of less than two hundred dollars.
The pertinent facts in this case are that a service station was broken into by means of shattering a plate glass window. The charge of destruction of personal property was the breaking of the plate glass window, which is a part of the same transaction as the breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor charge.1 The trial court sentenced the appellant to a period of five years on both charges, which is the maximum sentence for the breaking and entering charge. Thus, the sentence was a general sentence which this court has now held to be reversible error. Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d S81, opinion filed January 24, 1975. The sentence imposed on the destruction-of-personal-property charge was improper; however, by the entry of the general sentence on both charges we cannot determine what portion of said sentence was attributable to the offense of destruction of personal property.
Therefore, the judgments are affirmed but the general five-year sentence is hereby vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing on the judgment of guilt for the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. McNULTY, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur. . Cone v. State, Fla.1973, 285 So. 2d 12.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)…So. 2d 579 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Griffin v. State, 315 So. 2d 486 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Landers v. State, 315 So. 2d 522 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Farmer v. State, 315 So. 2d 225 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Long v. State, 310 So. 2d 35 (Fla.2d DCA 1975); Haddon v. State, 307 So. 2d 238 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). . The decision suggests, contrary to the Clark limitation on Benson (n. 7 above), that all general sentences are improper. . Paul v. State, 340 So. 2d 1249 (Fla.3d DCA 1976) (dictum). . Dorfman v. State, 333 So. 2d 481 (Fla.3d…
-
Long v. State, 310 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…not render the rule inapplicable. As stated, the trial court sentenced appellant to serve three years in the penitentiary after finding him guilty of the offenses charged in Counts 1, 2 and 3. Under our ruling in Haddon v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1975, 307 So. 2d 238, this is considered to be a general sentence and, therefore, invalid. See Darden v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1975, 306 So. 2d 581. For this reason, we have no alternative but to vacate the sentence. The judgment is Affirmed, but the case is remanded for…
-
Hervon Carter v. State, 330 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)…held that such a sentence constitutes an impermissible “general sentence,” Landers v. State, 315 So. 2d 522 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Griffin v. State, 315 So. 2d 486 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Farmer v. State, 315 So. 2d 225 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Haddon v. State, 307 So. 2d 238 (Fla.App.2nd 1975); Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d 581 (Fla.App. 2nd 1975). It has also been held that where one is charged in a dual-count in [*509] formation with (1) robbery, and (2) the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, to wit: robber…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cone v. State, 285 So. 2d 12 (Fla. 1973)