Case Name: Michael A. BAGGETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-10-04
Citations: 302 So. 2d 206
Docket Number: No. 74-323
Parties: Michael A. BAGGETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: BOARDMAN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 302
Pages: 206–208

Head Matter:
Michael A. BAGGETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 74-323.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct. 4, 1974.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1974.
James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and Ellen Condon, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
McNULTY, Chief Judge.
Appellant was found guilty of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and of grand larceny, each arising out of the same burglary. He was originally sentenced to seven years on the breaking and entering charge and to five years on the grand larceny charge to run consecutively, a total of twelve years. In a prior appeal we remanded the cause on the authority of Cone v. State, i. e, as vi-olative of the "single transaction" rationale, and ordered the vacation of the grand larceny sentence and a resentencing on the breaking and entering charge. On remand the trial court vacated the grand larceny sentence pursuant to our mandate and resentenced appellant on the breaking and entering charge, this time to a twelve year term. In vacating the grand larceny charge, however, the court went further and deferred sentencing thereon "from day to day and term to term." Appellant now seeks vacation of that deferred sentence and a reduction of the twelve year sentence on the breaking and entering charge claiming that the court was without authority to increase the original seven year sentence thereon.
First, as to the new, twelve year sentence we hold that from the imposition thereof, which equaled the combined original two sentences, and which was still within the prescribed statutory limits for the higher offense , it may be presumed that the trial court had intended originally to impose the equivalent of a single sentence, of the length specified, which he lawfully could have imposed if there were but the higher charge. Had he done so appellant surely couldn't be heard to complain; and he is in no better position now. We do not consider this a situation contemplated by those cases wherein it was held that a lawful sentence, once begun, cannot subsequently be vacated and increased. In those cases the net effect of the resentencing was to impose greater punishment while, here, the punishment is the same; the resentencing there was unfair, here it is not. We have no hesitancy in suggesting, moreover, that a resentenc-ing may even exceed an original sentence assuming, of course, compliance with the caveat in North Carolina v. Pearce relating to aggravating circumstances occurring subsequently to the original sentence.
Coming now to the deferred sentence on the grand larceny charge, we think the court erred in so deferring sentence from "day to day and term to term." In State v. Bateh our Supreme Court addressed a similar situation saying:
. . one convicted of an offense is entitled to know just when in his life . . . he is no longer subject to the power of the court to translate his liberty to imprisonment."
Apart from the potential consequences inherent in a sentence to a definite term of probation we know of no authority to defer either from "day to day" or from "term to term" the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment. Furthermore, imposition of any sentence on the grand larceny charge under the facts herein, even if that fateful "day" and "term" were considered to have arrived, would be contra to our rationale in Edmond v. State. The order was erroneous.
Accordingly, the sentence on the breaking and entering charge should be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. The order deferring sentence on the grand larceny charge, however, should be, and it is hereby, reversed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part.
BOARDMAN, J., concurs.
MANN, J. (Ret.), concurs specially with opinion.
. Baggett v. State (Fla.App.2d 1974), 287 So.2d 336.
. (Fla.1973), 285 So.2d 12.
. In retrospect, the Cone case, supra, may have been the wrong authority upon which to rely since the facts herein bring the case more precisely within the rationale of Edmond v. State (Fla.App.2d 1973), 280 So.2d 449. In any event, such discrepancy is of no consequence to our disposition of the case as it now stands before us.
. See, § 810.01 and § 775.082 (4) (c), F.S. 1973.
. See, e. g., Troupe v. Howe (Fla.1973), 283 So.2d 857, and Beckom v. State (Fla.App.2d 1969), 227 So.2d 232.
. 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).
. (Fla.1959), 110 So.2d 7.
. (Fla.App.2d 1973), 280 So.2d 449.