Case Name: William Arthur SCOTT, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-01-15
Citations: 326 So. 2d 165
Docket Number: No. 46777
Parties: William Arthur SCOTT, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.
Judges: ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 326
Pages: 165–167

Head Matter:
William Arthur SCOTT, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida, Respondent.
No. 46777.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jan. 15, 1976.
Phillip A..Hubbart, Public Defender, and Steven Rappaport, Asst. Public Defender, for petitioner.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Margarita Esquiroz, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Opinion:
MUSZYNSKI, Circuit Judge.
This cause is here on petition for writ of certiorari supported by certificate of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, that its decision (Scott v. State, 305 So.2d 289) is one which involves a question of great public interest. See Fla.Const., art. V, § 3(b)(3), F.S.A.
The question certified by the District Court of Appeal is:
"Whether a trial judge who previously sentenced a defendant to a term of years and upon a new trial, after the defendant is put on probation and said probation is revoked, may he then sentence him to a term in excess of the original term of incarceration"?
The District Court of Appeal, by a vote of two to one, answered the certified question in the affirmative. Although this Court is free to decline to entertain this cause, Zirin v. Charles Pfizer & Co., 128 So.2d 594 (Fla.1961), we prefer to accept jurisdiction and adopt the majority opinion of the District Court of Appeal as the opinion of this Court. Therefore, we hold that a trial judge who previously sentenced a defendant to a term of years less than the maximum allowable by law, may, after a new trial wherein defendant is placed on probation, impose for violation of the terms of probation, any sentence up to the maximum which could have been originally imposed.
In addition to answering the certified question in the affirmative, we affirm the District Court's disposition of the other issue involved in its decision.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, J., concur.
ENGLAND, J., concurs specially with an opinion.
BOYD, J., dissents with an opinion.