JACK LAMAR ADAMS, JR., 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.
Jack Lamar Adams, Jr. appeals an order revoking his probation and imposing a 15-year sentence for possession of pethidine, a controlled substance. The appellate court finds the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum of five years for a third-degree felony and reduces the sentence accordingly.
The sentence of fifteen years is excessive and violates statutory limits. Since possession of pethidine is a third-degree felony punishable by a maximum of five years imprisonment, the sentence is reduced to five years with credit for time served.
[1] A sentence imposed by a trial court that exceeds the statutory maximum for the offense constitutes an error.
[2] A trial court's discretion in sentencing will not be disturbed if the sentence imposed does not exceed the bounds established by statute.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“In Florida a determination of the sentence to be imposed falls within the discretion of the trial court; the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed if the sentence imposed does not exceed the bounds established by statute.”
Establishes that trial court sentencing discretion is limited by statutory maximums
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was arrested during execution of a search warrant that found him in a room with heroin and a pistol. He pled guilty to possession of pethidi…
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 Excessive Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
CROSS, Judge.
Appellant-defendant, Jack Lamar Adams, Jr., appeals an order revoking probation and imposition of sentence for possession of pethidine (meperidine), a controlled substance.
Appellant was arrested after police officers, executing a search warrant, found appellant in a room with a quantity of heroin and a pistol. An information was filed charging appellant with four counts of possession of controlled substances. Appellant pled guilty to one count, possession of pethidine (meperidine), was adjudicated guilty and placed on ten years probation. As a condition of his probation, appellant was required to complete a drug rehabilitation program. Appellant was subsequently charged with violating conditions of his probation by leaving the drug rehabilitation house before completing the program, by possessing a firearm, and for possessing heroin. Appellant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search, which was denied. Appellant pled not guilty to the violation of probation charges. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court revoked probation and sentenced appellant to fifteen years imprisonment. This appeal then followed.
The initial question for our determination is whether the trial court imposed an excessive sentence.
Pethidine (meperidine) is a controlled substance according to Section 893.-03(2)(b)(14), Florida Statutes (1975). A person in possession of a controlled substance is guilty of a third degree felony. Section 893.13(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1975). A third degree felony is punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years. Section 775.082(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1975).
In Florida a determination of the sentence to be imposed falls within the discretion of the trial court; the exercise of that discretion will not be disturbed if the sentence imposed does not exceed the bounds established by statute. Holden v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 286 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).
In the instant case, the maximum term for which appellant might have been sentenced was five years. After revocation of probation proceedings, the trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen years imprisonment, which exceeded the maximum five-year sentence by ten years. Thus the error. Accordingly, the sentence is reduced to five years; credit to be given for time served. McBride v. State, 311 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Chaires v. State, 265 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972).
Order affirmed and sentence modified.
MAGER, C. J., and LETTS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reynolds v. State, 598 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…. 2d 1106 (Fla.1988); Holland; Yukanovitz v. State, 547 So. 2d 722, 723 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The concurrent 5-year terms of imprisonment for VOP are legal and will not be disturbed. Jones v. State, 387 So. 2d 401 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Adams v. State, 347 So. 2d 685 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Holden v. City OF Fort Lauderdale, 286 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Chaires v. State, 265 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- McBRIDE v. State, 311 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)