Rozinski v. StateRozinski v. State
In 1971 аppellant pled guilty to and was put on probation for resisting an officer with violence in violation of F.S. 843.01. The offense occurred in 1970. Subsequently, аppellant violated her probation but was not apprehended therefor until 1974. After pleading guilty to violation of the probation, appellant’s probation was revokеd and she was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the violation оf F.S. 843.01. Appellant argues that this sentence is illegal.
The statute, F.S. 843.01, was amended effective January 1, 1972, Laws of Floridа Ch. 71-136, to provide that resisting an officеr with violence to his person is a third degree felony punishable by up to fivе years imprisonment. However, in 1970 when thе crime was committed, it was punishable “by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding two years, or by imprisonmеnt in the county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding $1,000.” Appellant’s punishment could not legally exceed these limits as sentеnce must be imposed under the law in effect at the time the crime was сommitted. Turner v. State,
The propеr course when sentence is in exсess of that authorized by law is to remand for imposition of a proper sentence. Bascelio v. Mayo, Fla.1955,
Remanded with directions.
Notes
. The cited cases construed Article III, Section 32, of the 1885 Constitution. They are pertinent to construction of Article X, Section 9, of the 1968 Constitution which is similar in its language and effect. Artiсle X, Section 9, 1968 Constitution:
“Repeal or amendment of a criminal statute shall not affect prosecution or punishment for any crime previоusly committed.” Article III, Section 32, 1885 Constitution:
“The repeal or amendment оf any Criminal Statute shall not effect the prosecution or punishment of any crime committed before such repeal or amendment.”