CLIFTON MASSEY, 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 judgment for entering without breaking, finding no prejudice from a misstated maximum sentence, but remanded for clarification of the judgment and sentence on the grand larceny charge.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to entering without breaking and grand larceny. The trial judge misinformed him about the maximum sentence for enter…
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 Grand Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant/defendant was charged with entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. He entered a plea of nolo contendere to both charges. At that time the trial judge adjudicated appellant guilty of entering without breaking and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. The judge stated that he would not pass sentence on the larceny charge. It appears from the final judgment however that appellant was adjudicated guilty on both charges and sentenced to the one five-year term for both crimes.
Appellant contends that his plea was not voluntarily made with full understanding of its significance. During the court’s colloquy with appellant to determine the voluntariness of the plea the judge misinformed him that the maximum sentence for entering without breaking was 15 years.1 We affirm the judgment on this charge since appellant has failed to show that he did not know the correct maximum term or to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the misstatement. Young v. State, 327 So. 2d 127 (Fla.2d DCA 1976).
We accept appellee’s suggestion that the trial court clarify its judgment and sentence on the grand larceny charge. If the trial judge intended to adjudicate appellant guilty on both charges the sentence must be apportioned between the two. Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Accordingly, we affirm in part and remand in part with directions.
GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur. . The maximum term is five years. §§ 775.082(4)(d) and 810.03, Fla.Stat. (1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dorfman v. State, 351 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 1977)…ited the Benson holding to cases where the general sentence, although within the aggregate of the maximum sentences allowable, would exceed the maximum sentence which could have been imposed on any single count. . See, for example, Massey v. State, 338 So. 2d 560 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Clark v. State, 338 So. 2d 572 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Oakley v. State, 338 So. 2d 92 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Maxwell v. State, 336 So. 2d 658 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Kelly v. State, 334 So. 2d 128 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Taylor v. State, 330 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Darden v. State, 306 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Young v. State, 327 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)