Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

564 So. 2d 640

Docket No. 89-1304.

Schesny v. State

Daniel Edward SCHESNY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 2, 1990.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1990-08-02

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 1991

4 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“DOES A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION RESULT FROM THE IMPOSITION OF A PROBATIONARY SPLIT SENTENCE WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED THAT DISPOSITION IN THE SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES OF SECTION 921.187, FLORIDA STATUTES?”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 575 So. 2d 654 - Schesny v. State, 566 So. 2d 945 - Huff v. State

Relies on 531 So. 2d 161 - Poore v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1990-08-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Barbara M. Linthicum, Public Defender, and Carl S. McGinnes, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Bradley R. Bischoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3ZEHMER, Judge.

¶4Daniel Edward Schesny appeals a judgment and sentence adjudicating him guilty of two counts of lewd and lascivious assault and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 6 years' incarceration to be followed by 5 years' probation on the ground that the sentence violates his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. In accordance with Poore v. State,531 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1988), we affirm the probationary split sentence. We certify to the supreme court, however, the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES A DOUBLE JEOPARDY VIOLATION RESULT FROM THE IMPOSITION OF A PROBATIONARY SPLIT SENTENCE WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZED *641 THAT DISPOSITION IN THE SENTENCING ALTERNATIVES OF SECTION 921.187, FLORIDA STATUTES?

¶5AFFIRMED.

¶6BOOTH and SMITH, JJ., concur.

/564/so2d/640 · .json · Public domain