Renaldo J. Bell v. State
216 So. 3d 751
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Renaldo J. Bell was convicted by jury of: one count of fighting and baiting animals, two counts of cruelty to animals, and one count of attending the fighting or baiting of animals — all third-degree felonies.
- Sentences for the fighting and cruelty counts: 1 year in county jail (with 2 days credit) followed by 4 years probation on each count, all concurrent.
- Sentence for attending count: 2 days in jail (with 2 days credit) then 4 years probation, with that 4-year probation ordered to run consecutively to the probation on the other counts.
- The trial court also ordered Bell to pay a $3,000 “donation” to the ASPCA, listed as a miscellaneous court-related charge.
- Bell appealed only his sentences, arguing (1) the probation on the attending count is illegally delayed (creating an improper gap between incarceration and probation), and (2) the court lacked statutory authority to require a $3,000 donation to the ASPCA.
Issues
| Issue | Bell's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probation portion of the attending-count sentence is illegal because it does not immediately follow incarceration (creates a gap) | The probation for the attending count is delayed until after the other counts’ probation, creating an unlawful gap between confinement and probation | The aggregate sentence includes one collective incarcerative period followed immediately by a collective probationary period; no unlawful gap exists | Affirmed: no illegal gap — the aggregate incarcerative period is complete before the single collective probation period begins, so the structure is lawful |
| Whether the trial court had authority to order a $3,000 donation to the ASPCA as part of sentence | No statutory authority permits ordering a charitable donation as a condition of sentence/probation | Court argued rationale for donation, but State concedes lack of statutory authority | Reversed as to the $3,000 donation; remanded to strike the donation from the sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. State, 551 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (nonincarcerative portion must immediately follow prison sanction)
- Horner v. State, 617 So.2d 311 (Fla. 1993) (collective probationary period may follow a single collective incarceration period without creating improper gap)
- Hatton v. State, 689 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (incarcerative portions of all counts must be completed before probationary portions begin)
- Hayes v. State, 686 So.2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (striking unauthorized monetary assessment as not statutorily authorized)
- Antosh v. State, 510 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (striking probation condition requiring contribution to a named charity for lack of statutory authority)