WILMER J. HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a trial court may impose a probationary period to commence after a prison sentence for another crime, and this procedure is not legally proscribed.
Appellant was convicted of four counts of forgery and received prison sentences on two counts and probation on the other two, to commence after the pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a denial of a Rule 3.850, R.C.Proc., 33 F.S.A., petition without an evidentiary hearing. We have considered its content and the presentation of counsel with care and find no merit or basis for reversal. Primarily, this is true because the points raised have been previously determined by this court.
There is question as to the adequacy of the petition to complain about a new point, i. e., the trial court’s action in imposing probation, following and in addition to the imposition of a prison sentence for another crime. Nonetheless, we have determined to consider the question as though properly and fully raised, and this at the behest of appellant’s counsel.
Appellant was charged in four separate informations with four separate ingredients of forgery. Being found guilty as to all, four separate judgments were entered by the court. On two cases, 69-609 and 69-610, the trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen years in prison. On two cases, 69-608 and 69-611, appellant was placed on probation for ten years to commence at the conclusion of the fifteen year prison sentence.
Appellant’s grievance is with what he chooses to call the “delayed probation”. We have neither found, nor been shown, any case law or statute that proscribes such trial court approach and action. When one realizes, as counsel concedes, that the trial court could have legally imposed the maximum prison sentence upon each charge, any onerousness of this procedure disappears. Further, while Roy v. State, Fla.App.1967, 207 So.2d 52, is not precisely the same, its sentiments afford light and support to our view that the trial judge acted within the bounds of law and discretion, and in the interest of appellant’s rehabilitation.
Affirmed.
WALDEN and OWEN, JJ., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sturn v. State, 295 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…1 The cases cited by appellant are not on point in that they deal with situations in which a term of prison and probation were imposed for a single offense. Such is not the case here. The Fourth District held in Harris v. State, Fla.App. 4th, 1973, 278 So. 2d 306, that a term of imprisonment could properly be followed by probation on different charges. Accordingly, we conclude as did the court in Harris, supra, that such a sentence is legal. Affirmed. MANN, C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur. . Dancy v. State,…
-
Craft v. State, 300 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…judge from entering separate judgments under such circumstances, and placing a defendant on probation under the second judgment to commence upon his release from prison under the first judgment [*309] and sentence. Harris v. State, Fla.App.4th 1973, 278 So. 2d 306; Sturn v. State, Fla. App.2d 1974, 295 So. 2d 713. The judgments and sentences appealed are Affirmed. McNULTY and 'GRIMES, JJ., concur. . Sec. 948.01(4) F.S. has since been amended by Ch. 74r-112, Laws of Florida, 1974, which became effective on…
-
Austile v. State, 301 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…e out of a different transaction, although the period of probation begins to run upon completion of the sentence imposed for the offense of breaking and entering. Sturn v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 295 So. 2d 713; Harris v. State, Fla.App. 4th, 1973, 278 So. 2d 306. Affirmed. MANN, C. J., and BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- ROY v. State, 207 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)