Case ID: so2d_689/html/1121-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ismel COUGLES a/k/a Abimael Cabrera, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 96-0998.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Feb. 12, 1997.
    Order Certifying Question on Grant of Rehearing March 19, 1997.
    Mark H. Hildebrandt of Mark H. Hilde-brandt, P.A., Miami Beach, and H. Scott Fingerhut of H. Scott Fingerhut, P.A., Miami, for appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

FARMER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the appellant’s judgment of conviction and sentence. However, since the fourth issue on appeal raises the same legal question which this court certified to the supreme court in Young v. State, 678 So.2d 427 (Pla. 4th DCA 1996), review granted, 687 So.2d 1308 (Fla.1997), we certify the same question here.

IS A DEPENDANT ENTITLED TO CREDIT POR TIME SPENT ON PROBATION/COMMUNITY CONTROL WHEN A NEW SENTENCE OF INCARCERATION IS IMPOSED FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROBATIONARY PORTION OF A SPLIT SENTENCE AND THE NEW PERIOD OF INCARCERATION, WHEN COMBINED WITH THE PROBATION/COMMUNITY CONTROL PREVIOUSLY SERVED, EXCEEDS THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM FOR THE CRIME CHARGED?

FARMER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.