No. 95-03722 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 1996
Juan Moran appeals his sentence imposed after a violation of community control. We reverse the sentence because the trial court imposed a period of incarceration longer than the suspended portion of this true split, habitual offender sentence.
In 1993, the state charged Mr. Moran with robbery. He agreed to plead nolo con-tendere in exchange for a true split sentence. The agreement called for a suspended five-year period of incarceration as a habitual offender, subject to one year of community control, followed by three years’ probation.
Prior to Mr. Moran’s negotiated plea, this court announced that a habitual offender sentence could be imposed as a true split sentence subject to the conditions described in Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161" court="Fla." date_filed="1988-09-22" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/poore-v-state-1150029?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1150029">531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988). Wallace v. State, 618 So. 2d 797" court="Fla. Dist. Ct. App." date_filed="1993-05-28" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/wallace-v-state-1801897?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="1801897">618 So.2d 797 (Fla.App. 2nd Dist.1998). Accordingly, the maximum sentence that could have been imposed upon this violation of community control was five years’ imprisonment as a habitual offender. On remand, the trial court shall also prepare a written order specifying the conditions of community control that were violated in this case.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. Poorer. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988), seems to describe a period of probation or community control equal to the suspended sentence. The fact that this agreement provides for a shorter period of probation and community control is not an issue in this appeal.