You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Bono v. State

Citations: 553 So. 2d 293; 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2746; 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6771; 1989 WL 145722Docket: No. 89-1811

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; November 29, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Appellant, convicted of grand theft (a third-degree felony), was initially sentenced to three years of probation and required to pay restitution. Following an injury that prevented him from making restitution payments, the trial court found he did not violate his probation during the two years of his injury. However, the court extended his probation for an additional two years. Appellant challenged this extension, and the State acknowledged the extension was inappropriate, referencing Swift v. State, which establishes that the maximum probation period cannot exceed the maximum incarceration term for the offense. The appellate court concurred with the appellant's argument and reversed the trial court's modification order dated June 16, 1989. Judges BOOTH, WIGGINTON, and BARFIELD concurred in the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Extension of Probation Period

Application: The appellate court determined that the trial court's extension of the probation period was inappropriate as it exceeded the statutory maximum allowed for the offense.

Reasoning: The State acknowledged the extension was inappropriate, referencing Swift v. State, which establishes that the maximum probation period cannot exceed the maximum incarceration term for the offense.

Modification of Probation Terms

Application: The appellate court found that the trial court's order to extend probation was inconsistent with legal principles governing probation terms.

Reasoning: The appellate court concurred with the appellant's argument and reversed the trial court's modification order dated June 16, 1989.

Restitution and Probation Compliance

Application: The trial court recognized that the appellant did not violate probation terms during the injury period, despite non-payment of restitution.

Reasoning: Following an injury that prevented him from making restitution payments, the trial court found he did not violate his probation during the two years of his injury.