Deas v. State (994 So. 2d 1229, 2008)

PER CURIAM.

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the sentence appellant was serving when he violated his probation was a true split sentence as described in Evans v. State, 730 So.2d 768, 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). When a defendant has received a true split sentence and subsequently violates the terms of probation, the trial court may not impose a new sentence lasting longer than the suspended portion of the split sentence. See id. We therefore conclude that, under the case law, the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to a term of incarceration lasting longer than the suspended one-year jail sentence.

We REVERSE and REMAND for re-sentencing.

KAHN, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.