Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

553 So. 2d 384

553 So.2d 384

14 Fla.L.Weekly 2825

Copeland v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 11, 1989

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-12-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1992

1 state decisions

Relies on 531 So. 2d 161 - Poore v. State · 545 So. 2d 838 - Lambert v. State · 547 So. 2d 925 - State v. Green

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-12-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ERVIN, Judge.

¶1The probationary split sentence imposed on appellant is not illegal. See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla.1988); Carter v. State, 552 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). However, the trial court did err by sentencing appellant in excess of the one-cell bump-up for probation violation. See Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla.1989); Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla.1989). Additionally, the trial court erred by failing to give appellant credit for all earned gain-time. See Green v. State, 547 So.2d 925 (Fla.1989); Melvin v. State, 553 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

¶2AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for the purpose of *385resentencing appellant either within the guidelines range or within the one-cell bump-up, with appropriate credit to be allowed for all previously earned gain-time.

SHIVERS, C.J. and NIMMONS, J., concur.
/553/so2d/384 · .json · Public domain