Alex Peterson v. State
230 So. 3d 1274
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant (Alex Peterson) appealed sentences imposed after he violated probation in three cases.
- He claimed his original sentences were "true" split sentences, limiting the court’s power on revocation.
- A true split sentence suspends part of a total confinement; probation covers the suspended portion.
- The State argued the originals were "probationary" split sentences: jail first, then probation, with no suspended portion.
- Written sentencing documents were ambiguous, but transcripts showed the trial court orally ordered incarceration followed by probation and did not suspend any portion.
- The Fifth District reviewed the transcripts and affirmed the post-revocation prison terms as lawful because they were within statutory maximums and the original sentences were probationary splits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether original sentences were "true" split sentences | Peterson: originals were true splits, so revocation incarceration limited to suspended portion | State: originals were probationary splits (incarceration then probation), so full statutory exposure on revocation | Court held originals were probationary splits based on oral pronouncements; revocation sentences lawful |
| Whether oral pronouncement or written documents control when conflict exists | Peterson: relies on written documents' ambiguity to claim true split | State: relies on transcript showing incarceration then probation | Court held oral pronouncement controls over conflicting written documents |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Stephens, 804 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (defines split-sentence types)
- Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1988) (discusses sentencing for probation violations)
- Harris v. State, 218 So. 3d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (true-split sentences limit post-revocation incarceration)
- Boone v. State, 967 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (double jeopardy concern when exceeding suspended portion)
- Howells v. State, 16 So. 3d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (probationary splits allow sentencing up to statutory maximum on revocation)
- Chrystie v. State, 95 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (oral pronouncement controls when conflict with written sentence)
- Williams v. State, 957 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2007) (same rule: oral pronouncement controls)