Smith v. StateSmith v. State
The defendant, Steven Smith, contends the trial court erred in imposing prison sentences followed by probation which, when combined, exceed statutory maximums. We agree.
This appeal involves two cases. In circuit court case number 89-344, the defendant pled guilty to two counts of burglary of a dwelling and two counts of grand theft, which occurred on September 16, 1988. He was sentenced to four and one-half years in prison followed by five years’ probation on each count, concurrent. The burglary counts are second degree felonies, section
The law is clear that when a defendant is sentenced to a split sentence consisting of incarceration and probation, as provided by statute, the combined sanction cannot exceed the maximum period of incarceration provided by law. State v. Holmes, 360 So.2d 380, 383 (Fla. 1978). See
In circuit court case number 89-346, the defendant pled guilty to burglary, grand theft, and fraudulent use of a credit card, occurring on February 2 and 4, 1989. The court properly found the defendant to be a habitual felon. It then sentenced him to ten years imprisonment followed by five years probation on each count. The statutory maximum sentence for a burglary count, a second degree felony, is 30 years when a defendant is habitualized.
We affirm all of the defendant‘s convictions. We vacate his sentences for grand theft in circuit court case number 86-344 and his sentences for grand theft and the fraudulent use of a credit card in circuit court case number 86-346. We affirm the remaining sentences. We direct the trial court to resentence the defendant consistent with this opinion.
FRANK and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.