Summary
In Vachris v. State, 553 So.2d 375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (Vachris I), this court reversed the trial court's suspension of appellant's license, because grand theft is not an offense for which the trial court could suspend the license.
Summary of this case from Vachris v. StateOpinion
No. 89-01001.
December 8, 1989.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Charlotte County, Elmer O. Friday, J.
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Andrea Steffen, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Vachris pled no contest to grand theft and was put on probation. He was charged with violation of his probation and again pled no contest. The trial judge suspended Vachris' driver's license as part of the sentence and he appeals. The only point raised is the suspension of the driver's license.
The state admits that the offense is not one for which the trial judge could suspend the license. However, the state also points out that there was evidence that an automobile was used in the grand theft. In such a case, the trial court may forward the record of the conviction and the factual basis showing the use of the motor vehicle to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles which must revoke the driving privilege pursuant to Florida Statute 322.26(3) (1987).
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of Vachris' sentence suspending his driver's license, and remand for compliance with section 322.26. See Mandile v. State, 547 So.2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Otherwise, affirmed.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.