From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amann v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 10, 1981
403 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. 80-1823.

June 10, 1981.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Highlands County, Clifton M. Kelly, J.

Jerry Hill, Public Defender, and Richard N. Staten, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael A. Palecki, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Appellant, a 17-year-old, was convicted of burglary of a dwelling, burglary of a structure, and two counts of grand larceny. The transcript of the sentencing hearing clearly reflects that the trial judge sentenced appellant as a youthful offender pursuant to section 958.05(2), Florida Statutes (1979). Appellant was orally sentenced to six years for the burglary of a dwelling and five years on each of the remaining counts. The five year sentences were to be served concurrently with the six year sentence. The trial judge further stated that, "[t]he maximum you will serve will be four years under the law." The written judgment and sentence tracks the oral sentence except that it does not provide that the maximum term of imprisonment was to be four years. The appellant contends that because of this omission his sentence was improper. We agree.

Section 958.05(2) provides that where a person is classified as a youthful offender, he may not be committed to the Department of Corrections for more than six years. The appellant's sentence complies with this requirement. However, that statute further demands that the sentence specify the following:

A period of not more than the first four years to be served by imprisonment and a period of not more than two years to be served in a community control program.

The written sentence imposed by the trial court does not indicate how long appellant is to be imprisoned, and neither the oral nor the written sentence specifies how long he must serve in a community control program. Therefore, the sentence fails to satisfy the requirements of section 958.05(2) and must be vacated. The case is remanded for the entry of a corrected sentence, but, in all other respects, appellant's conviction is affirmed.

SCHEB, C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.


Summaries of

Amann v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jun 10, 1981
403 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

Amann v. State

Case Details

Full title:JAY CHRISTOPHER AMANN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jun 10, 1981

Citations

403 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)