Hoffman v. State
| Decision Date | 18 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-3578.,97-3578. |
| Citation | 729 So.2d 421 |
| Parties | Jarod H. HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Carolyn J. Mosley, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Two issues are raised in this appeal from an order of the trial court revoking appellant's community control, and imposing a ten-year sentence of incarceration. The issues are whether the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke community control, and whether appellant's violation of condition (12) of his community control was willful. We reverse on the first issue.
Appellant entered into a plea agreement whereby he pled no contest to robbery, a second degree felony. Pursuant to the plea agreement, a ten-year suspended sentence was to be imposed, and appellant was to be required to serve two years of community control, subject to various conditions, to be followed by eight years of probation, with conditions. In addition to the two years of community control, appellant would be required to serve twenty-six weekends in jail at the direction of his probation officer, with various court costs, fines, and work hours left to the discretion of the trial court.
On March 21, 1995, the trial court adjudicated appellant guilty, and pronounced sentence in accordance with the terms of the plea agreement. The court imposed court costs in a total amount of $261.00, and imposed a fine of $1,000.00. The community control order was signed March 28, 1995, nunc pro tunc, March 21, 1995. The order was filed March 29, 1995.
On March 18, 1997, an Affidavit of Violation of Community Control was signed by appellant's community control officer; the affidavit was filed March 25, 1997. In the affidavit, the community control officer alleged that appellant violated several conditions of his community control. After a hearing, appellant was found to have violated the terms of his community control by violating condition (12). Condition (12) states:
(12) You will remain confined to your approved residence except for one half hour before and after your approved employment, public service work, or any other special activities approved by your officer.
The trial court imposed a ten-year period of incarceration with 107 days credit for time served, and entered a civil judgment for the unpaid balance of appellant's monetary obligations.
Turning to the first issue, the state properly concedes that the question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal. The state also concedes that the affidavit alleging appellant violated his community control was filed, and the warrant issued, after the two-year period of community control had expired. Nevertheless, the state asserts that the trial court retained subject matter jurisdiction to revoke appellant's community control by virtue of the probationary period which commenced when appellant's community control terminated. We do not agree.
It is well settled that the trial court lacks jurisdiction to revoke probation for a violation that occurs within the period of probation, "unless the revocation process is set in motion during the probationary period." See State v. Boyd, 717 So.2d 524, 526 (Fla.1998), approving, Boyd v. State, 699 So.2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In Boyd, the supreme court reaffirmed the ruling in Dubbs v. Lehman, 100 Fla. 799, 130 So. 36 (1930), where the court previously held that "an arrest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. State, 5D02-2965.
...Cesaire v. State, 811 So.2d 816, 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)); see also Morgan v. State, 757 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Hoffman v. State, 729 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). ...
-
Morgan v. State, 2D99-1779.
...741 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). We note that because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see Hoffman v. State, 729 So.2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), Morgan could raise this defect at any time. See Tatum v. State, 736 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.W. v. State, 637 So.2d ......
-
CB v. State
...716 So.2d 269 (Fla.1998); and see Tyson v. State, 655 So.2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Hoffman v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D566, 729 So.2d 421, 1999 WL 73696 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb.18, 1999). However, we must reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing because, as the appellee correctly c......
-
State v. Williams, 1D17-1581
...is true that the question of subject-matter jurisdiction may generally be raised for the first time on appeal. See Hoffman v. State , 729 So.2d 421, 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). This is because a court acting beyond its jurisdiction may be committing fundamental error. See Smith v. State , 521 ......
-
This court has no jurisdiction a look at probation and community control revocation proceedings in light of Boyd and F.S. s. 901.02(1).
...occurs within the period of probation, "unless the revocation process is set in motion during the probationary period." Hoffman v. State, 729 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).(5) This revocation process or procedure as outlined by statute and defined by case law has two requirements. First, a......