Detailed Instructions: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
Q: in prison as a condition of his probation; however, the written sentence re n in Florida State Prison as a condition of probation. As a result, the sentence is illegal and should be corrected. Although the written sentence imposed on count three is a nullity because it differs from the oral pronouncement, we also note the following. Possession of al-prazolam is a third-degree felony. The maximum permissible sentence for a third-degree felony is five years. 775.082(3)(d), Fla. Stat. (2011). The written sentence imposed two years in prison followed by five years' probation resulting in a total sentence of seven years. Because the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum for a third-degree felony, it is an illegal sentence. See Netkerly v. State, 804 So.2d 433, 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. State, 584 So.2d 154, 154 (Fla. 2d
Holding statements: (A) holding sentences need only be below the statutory maximum (B) holding sentence of thirtyfive years in prison with ten years probation for seconddegree murder is within the statutory maximum under 1997 statutes (C) holding that sentences of five years in prison followed by ten years probation were illegal sentences that exceeded the statutory maximum of five years for a thirddegree felony (D) holding that santoss concern regarding the evisceration of congresss choice of a low statutory maximum penalty for an underlying offense did not apply where the underlying offenses carried maximum sentences of twenty years and the money laundering offense carried a lower maximum sentence of ten years (E) holding that a potential prison sentence of up to five years was clearly serious
A:
(C)