Case Name: Carl SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1993-12-03
Citations: 627 So. 2d 120
Docket Number: No. 93-1892
Parties: Carl SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: ZEHMER, C.J., and ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 627
Pages: 120–120

Head Matter:
Carl SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 93-1892.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec. 3, 1993.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Joe S. Garwood, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Carl Smith appeals a final judgment that revokes his probation for burglary and grand theft and imposes a 6-year prison sentence for the burglary and a concurrent 5-year prison term for the grand theft. Smith raises two contentions: (1) the 6-year sentence for the burglary is illegal because it exceeds the one-cell bump up from the original score-sheet range, or a maximum of 5½ years in prison, which he could have received for violating probation; and (2) the 5-year sentence for the grand theft is illegal because prior to violating probation, he had already served a portion of the original sentence of 5 years' imprisonment to be followed by a 3-year period of probation which exceeds the statutory maximum term of 5 years' imprisonment for the offense.
We reverse the 6-year sentence for the burglary in accordance with Hosmer v. State, 523 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and remand for resentencing at which the circuit court must state reasons in the event that he chooses to impose a departure sentence.
We also reverse the 5-year sentence for the grand theft because it is undisputed that Smith has already served the statutory maximum term for that offense.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ZEHMER, C.J., and ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.