Case Name: John David STARLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-10-18
Citations: 458 So. 2d 799
Docket Number: No. 83-123
Parties: John David STARLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 458
Pages: 799–800

Head Matter:
John David STARLING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 83-123.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Oct. 18, 1984.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1984.
Angus W. Harriett, of Harriett & Sproull, P.A., Palatka, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard B. Martell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Day-tona Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentence in a grand theft case. The Appellant does not seek any specific relief but we presume he would have a reversal of the sentence. He alleges in his brief that the sentence is cruel and unusual.
Appellant was convicted of numerous counts of grand theft. He was placed on probation as to some counts and no sentence was imposed as to others.
As we said in Phillips v. State, 455 So.2d 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) and as was said by the Supreme Court in Bateh v. Florida, 110 So.2d 7 (Fla.1959), cert. denied, Bateh v. Florida, 361 U.S. 826, 80 S.Ct. 74, 4 L.Ed.2d 69 (1959) it is error to suspend a sentence indefinitely. It is unfair to all concerned, victims and defendant alike, and serves no beneficial purpose.
While the sentence is affirmed, as in Phillips, the practice should be discouraged.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.