SAMUEL PEARSON, 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 held that the sentences could be interpreted to run consecutively, with probation commencing after prison release, and affirmed the judgments as so interpreted.
Appellant was sentenced to life probation for one robbery and prison for another robbery and for giving false information, all to be served concurrent…
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 Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to plea negotiations appellant was sentenced to life probation for robbery (case number 76-6325, appeal number 77-845), fifteen years in prison for another count of robbery (case number 76-7080, appeal number 77-908), and five years in prison for giving false information to obtain unemployment compensation (circuit court number 76-5178, appeal number 77-909). All three sentences are to be served concurrently.
In this appeal appellant argues that the trial court erred by simultaneously placing him on probation and sentencing him to prison. However, we interpret the sentences so that appellant’s life probation does not commence until he is released from prison on the other two charges.
As so interpreted, the judgments appealed from are affirmed, but these cases are remanded for resentencing of appellant. The sentences in circuit court case numbers 76-7080 (appeal number 77-908) and 76-5178.(appeal number 77-909) do not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1975); Brooks v. State, 349 So. 2d 794 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentences is improper. Brooks v. State, supra. The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schurman v. State, 847 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…on and probation. See Porter v. State, 585 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Brooks v. State, 762 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Clemons v. State, 629 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Cox v. State, 468 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Pearson v. State, 354 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Consequently, although the incarcerative portion of his sentence in Case No. 93-202 may have expired prior to his release from prison in May 1998, the probationary portion of that sentence was tolled while he remained in prison o…
Authorities Cited
- Brooks v. State, 349 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)