Florida District Courts of Appeal, 1989

Copeland v. State

Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided December 11, 1989 · Ervin, Nimmons, Shivers

553 So. 2d 384; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2825; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6939; 1989 WL 148439 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

Latham v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

ERVIN, Judge.

The probationary split sentence imposed on appellant is not illegal. See Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161 (Fla. 1988); Carter v. State, 552 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). However, the trial court did err by sentencing appellant in excess of the one-cell bump-up for probation violation. See Lambert v. State, 545 So.2d 838 (Fla. 1989); Franklin v. State, 545 So.2d 851 (Fla. 1989). Additionally, the trial court erred by failing to give appellant credit for all earned gain-time. See Green v. State, 547 So.2d 925 (Fla. 1989); Melvin v. State, 553 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

AFFIRMED in part, and REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for the purpose of *385resentencing appellant either within the guidelines range or within the one-cell bump-up, with appropriate credit to be allowed for all previously earned gain-time.

SHIVERS, C.J. and NIMMONS, J., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.