Case Name: Dale Lee McKEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-06-09
Citations: 528 So. 2d 417
Docket Number: No. 87-1878
Parties: Dale Lee McKEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 528
Pages: 417–419

Head Matter:
Dale Lee McKEE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 87-1878.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 9, 1988.
Rehearing Denied July 27, 1988.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Christopher S. Quarles, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and W. Brian Bayly, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Dale McKee, was charged with burglary of a structure and second-degree grand theft. He pled guilty to these charges, and a guideline scoresheet prepared for sentencing showed a total of 68 points, placing him in the 12-30 month range. The trial court adjudicated McKee guilty on both counts, and placed him on five years' probation for the burglary charge, while imposing a sentence on the grand theft charge which provided "[f]or a term of five (5) years suspend three (3) years." The court also checked the first of the "split sentence" boxes on the sentence form providing for "followed by a period of three years on probation...." The five years on probation for the burglary charge was to run consecutively to the grand theft charge.
McKee appeals, contending that the sentence imposed for the grand theft, two years' imprisonment followed by three years on probation, is improper, since it is possible that if McKee violates his probation he would be subject to a sentence of five years, thereby constituting a departure sentence. This contention is without merit. The sentence imposed herein is not a departure sentence, since the term of imprisonment is within the guideline range, and the total split sentence is within the statutory limit for a third-degree felony, five years. See McKinley v. State, 519 So.2d 1154 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Posey v. State, 501 So.2d 192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); McDowell v. State, 491 So.2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), approved in part, quashed in part, 509 So.2d 927 (Fla. 1987); see also Committee Note, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.701(d)(12). In the instant case, the incarcerative period is two years, which falls within the guideline range.
From the colloquy shown by the trial transcript, it is apparent that the trial court intended to impose a "true" split sentence of five years — two years' incarceration followed by three years' probation —for the instant offense of grand theft. This should have been done by utilizing the second of the "split sentence" boxes on the sentence form. In other words, the sentence should have been:
For a term of five years. However, after serving a period of two years' imprisonment in-, the balance of such sentence shall be suspended and the Defendant shall be placed on probation for a period of three years under supervision of the Department of Corrections according to the terms and conditions of probation set forth in the separate order entered herein.
(The italics indicating the blanks on the sentence form.)
The trial judge's checking of the first "split sentence" box was redundant, confusing and erroneous in this case, and that part of the sentence, therefore, should be stricken. With that understanding, the split sentence of five years (two in, three out) is
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.
. The committee note to rule 3.701(d)(12) provides as follows:
If a split sentence is imposed (i.e., a combination of state prison and probation supervision), the incarcerative portion imposed shall not be less than the minimum of the guideline range nor exceed the maximum of the range. The total sanction (incarceration and probation) shall not exceed the term provided by general law.
. Literally construed, the trial court's written sentence herein provided for a total of six years' probation (3 + 3), which clearly was not intended.