ROBERT CLARK WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 1977-02-18
No. CC-108
BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.
342 So. 2d 565 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1977) Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases

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.

Synopsis

Robert Wright appealed his conviction and 30-year split sentence for involuntary sexual battery, challenging the trial court's prohibition on gain time, good time credits, and parole eligibility. The Florida District Court of Appeal found that while courts may impose split sentences without initial gain time or good time credits, the sentence was illegal because insufficient time remained to allow for maximum credits after imprisonment, and courts lack authority to restrict parole eligibility for first-degree felonies.


Holding

The court held that while trial courts may impose split sentences without initial gain time or good time credits under Florida law, the credits must be available during some portion of the sentence. Additionally, courts lack authority to restrict parole eligibility for first-degree felonies, as that authority is vested exclusively in the Parole and Probation Commission, and the legislature provided no restriction on parole for first-degree felonies as it did for capital felonies.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court may impose a split sentence, requiring a defendant to serve a specified period of imprisonment followed by probation, provided there is sufficient time rema…

[2] A trial court lacks the authority to restrict a defendant's eligibility for parole when sentencing for a first-degree felony, as parole determination is the prerogative o…

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Under the foregoing statute providing for a split sentence, it is permissible for the trial court to require that the initial imprisonment prior to release on probation be served without credit for gain time or good time provided there is sufficient time left in the sentence after the period of imprisonment to allow for the maximum gain time and good time that the defendant could acquire during the term of imprisonment.”

Establishes the condition for lawful split sentences—credits must be available during some portion of the sentence term

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Wright was convicted of involuntary sexual battery, a first-degree felony. The trial court imposed a 30-year sentence split as follows: 25 years impri…

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.


Opinion of the Court
McCORD, Judge.

McCORD, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of involuntary sexual battery and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment with a proviso in his sentence that after serving 25 of the 30 year term with no allowance for gain time or good time and no parole, the remainder of such sentence shall be stayed and withheld and he shall be placed on probation for a period of five years under the supervision of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission. This appeal is from the judgment and sentence and appellant’s subsequent motion for correction and reduction of sentence. Appellant contends the trial court erred in imposing 25 years imprisonment without gain time or good time or consideration for parole.

The 30 year sentence is the maximum for involuntary sexual battery, a felony of the first degree, [§ 794.011(4) and 775.082, Fla.Stat.1975], The split sentence imposed (part imprisonment and part probation) is pursuant to § 948.01(4), Fla.Stat. 1975, which states as follows:

“(4) Whenever punishment by imprisonment for a misdemeanor or a felony, except for a capital felony, is prescribed, the court, in its discretion, may, at the time of sentencing, direct the defendant to be placed on probation upon completion of any specified period of such sentence. In such case, the court shall stay and withhold the imposition of the remainder of sentence imposed upon the defendant, and direct that the defendant be placed upon probation after serving such period as may be imposed by the court.”

Under the foregoing statute providing for a split sentence, it is permissible for the trial court to require that the initial imprisonment prior to release on probation be served without credit for gain time or good time provided there is sufficient time left in the sentence after the period of imprisonment to allow for the maximum gain time and good time that the defendant could acquire during the term of imprisonment. See Mackey v. State, 310 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1 DCA 1975). Here there is insufficient time left on appellant’s sentence after the period of imprisonment to allow for the maximum gain time he could acquire under § 944.27, Fla.Stat.1975, and the maximum extra good time he could acquire under § 944.29, Fla. Stat.1975.

As to parole, we find no authority and none has been furnished us that authorizes a restriction against consideration for parole in a sentence for a felony of the first degree. Authority relative to the giving or withholding of parole has been granted by the legislature to the Florida Parole and Probation Commission. See § 947.16, Fla. Stat.1975. It is that Commission’s prerogative under the statute to determine whether or not and under what conditions parole will be granted. We note that under the penalties section of the Florida Statutes (§ 775.082, Fla.Stat.1975), the legislature specifically provided that a person who has been convicted of a capital felony and who is not sentenced to death shall be punished by life imprisonment and shall be required to serve no less than 25 years before becoming eligible for parole. The penalty for a felony in the first degree, however, contains no similar restriction as to parole. The sentence of appellant is vacated and the cause is remanded for the imposition of a legal sentence.

Reversed and remanded.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Berry v. State, 400 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
    …iscretionary, planning level decision which does not subject the state to tort liability. See Moore v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 289 So. 2d 719 (Fla.), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 935, 94 S.Ct. 2649, 41 L.Ed.2d 239 (1974); Wright v. State, 342 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). In reaching this decision, we have carefully considered the recent opinion in Payton v. United States, 636 F. 2d 132 (5th Cir. 1981), which permitted a cause of action to be prosecuted against the United States Parole Board for…
  • Tindell v. State, 423 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
    …m and a lien for the payment of court-appointed counsel be paid as conditions of any parole. The Florida Parole & Probation Commission has the authority to determine whether or not and under what conditions parole will be granted. Wright v. State, 342 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). While the trial court may make recommendations concerning parole, it may not impose conditions to parole. Owens v. State, 308 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Appellant was also ordered to pay $2.00 in court costs and $10.00 to…
  • Dewayne Frank Noble, III v. State, 374 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
    …llant being placed on probation for two years. Appellant asserts that the provision of the sentence disallowing credit for good time or gain time during the first three years of the split sentence is illegal. We disagree. [*1117] In Wright v. State, 342 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) [which cited this court’s previous opinion in Mackey v. State, 310 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)], we noted that: It is permissible for the trial court to require that the initial imprisonment pri- or to release on probation be…

Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw