DEWEY LANIERO, PETITIONER,
v.
LOUIE L. WAINWRIGHT, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF OFFENDER REHABILITATION, RESPONDENT
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.
A trial court cannot impose a combined period of imprisonment and probation that exceeds the maximum statutory sentence for the offense.
Appellant was convicted of grand larceny and sentenced to a split sentence of imprisonment followed by probation. The total period of imprisonment and…
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 Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant-defendant, Dewey Laniero, appeals a judgment of guilty and imposition of sentence entered upon a conviction for grand larceny.
Appellant was charged by information with the offense of grand larceny and adjudged guilty as charged after trial and conviction by jury. Appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for five years after serving forty-two months of which appellant was to be placed on probation for three and one-half years.
The sole question presented for our determination is whether the trial court had authority to impose probation beyond the period of maximum sentence.
It is now uniformly held that although a trial judge is permitted to enter a split sentence, the combined period cannot exceed the maximum period of time provided for that particular crime. Sherman v. State, 344 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Holmes v. State, 343 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Heatherly v. State, 343 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
The offense of grand larceny, a third degree felony, is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years. Section 775.082, Florida Statutes (1975). In the instant case, pursuant to a conviction for grand larceny, appellant was sentenced to combined terms of imprisonment and probation which exceeded the maximum five-year sentence by two years. Thus the error. Accordingly, appellant’s probation is reduced to one and one-half years. McBride v. State, 311 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
Judgment and sentence affirmed, and probation modified.
CROSS, ALDERMAN and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rozmestor v. State, 381 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…of the particular crime are also invalidated because they have the inherent evil of possibly subjecting a defendant to serving a prison term without regard to “the march of the years.” State v. Bateh, 110 So. 2d 7 (Fla.1959); Laniero v. Wainwright, 347 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Kishel v. State, 351 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Green v. State, 354 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); McArthur v. State, 330 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). In Segal v. Wainwright, 304 So. 2d 446 (Fla.1974), the Florida Sup…
Authorities Cited
- Heatherly v. State, 343 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Holmes v. State, 343 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- McBRIDE v. State, 311 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Sherman v. State, 344 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)