Case Name: Mark CARR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1988-06-02
Citations: 528 So. 2d 406
Docket Number: No. 87-1799
Parties: Mark CARR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: COBB, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 528
Pages: 406–410

Head Matter:
Mark CARR, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 87-1799.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
June 2, 1988.
Rehearings Denied July 20, 1988.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and James R. Wulchak, 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:
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from a sentence. Under the sentencing guidelines appellant scored within the seven to nine-year range. The trial judge sentenced him to forty years in prison and suspended thirty-two years, thus requiring him to serve eight years of incarceration. He was also given a total of twenty years probation on top of the forty years. We construe this sentence as a true split sentence of forty years imprisonment split between eight years incarceration and thirty-two years of suspended probation. The trial court's attempt to impose an additional twenty years of probation on top of this split sentence is unauthorized and void.
Because the principal crime appellant committed was robbery with a firearm, which carries a life sentence, his sentence including the combination of incarceration and suspended probation, does not exceed the statutory maximum. § 812.13(2)(a). Because he received no more incarceration than the guidelines permit, eight years, the total sanction does not violate the sentencing guidelines. The committee note under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(d)12 says "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."
Here appellant faced life imprisonment for the armed robbery and five years each for the four burglaries. That adds up to life plus twenty years maximum exposure under general law.
Appellant's sentence, as modified, is legal because it does not provide for more or less than that recommended by the guidelines for the incarcerative portion and does not exceed the maximum provided by general law when all portions, prison and non-prison, are combined. The split sentence of forty years is therefore affirmed but the additional twenty years of probation is vacated.
AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part.
COBB, J., concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.
. Appellant was convicted of robbery of a firearm and four burglaries. The judge gave him twenty years probation on the robbery and concurrent five years probation on each of the burglaries.