Lafave v. State
Decision Date | 16 October 2014 |
Docket Number | No. SC12–2232.,SC12–2232. |
Parties | Debra LAFAVE, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Julius Joseph Aulisio, Assistant Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, FL, for Petitioner.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Florida, and Robert Jay Krauss, Bureau Chief, and Cerese Crawford Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, FL, for Respondent.
This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal in State v. LaFave, 113 So.3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). In its decision, the district court ruled upon the following question and certified it to be of great public importance:
IN THE ABSENCE OF A STATUTORY RIGHT TO APPEAL, MAY THE STATE SEEK CERTIORARI REVIEW OF AN ORDER TERMINATING PROBATION WHERE IT CAN SHOW THAT THE CIRCUIT COURT DEPARTED FROM THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW BY VIOLATING THE PLEA AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE DEFENDANT WHICH CALLED FOR NO EARLY TERMINATION?
Id. at 37. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
For the reasons stated below, we answer the certified question in the negative and quash the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal which reinstated LaFave's probation pursuant to the terms and conditions of her negotiated plea agreement and original sentence. Because we determine that the Second District lacked jurisdiction to review the circuit court's order terminating LaFave's probation, we do not reach the merits of its decision.
As summarized by the district court below, the facts in this case are:
At the hearing on LaFave's Motion to Terminate Probation, LaFave argued that under section 948.05, Florida Statutes (2011), the trial court has inherent jurisdiction to hear the motion and to reward defendants based on their successful completion, or substantial completion, of such strict probationary and community control terms, regardless of what the parties may have agreed to. The State argued that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the motion, in light of the “no early termination” provision. The State further argued that if the court in fact had jurisdiction, that the motion should be dismissed on the merits, as the DOC and the victim strongly opposed LaFave's release from probation. The trial court granted LaFave's motion. The State filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari with the Second District Court of Appeal, which the Second District granted.
The Second District acknowledged that the State had no right of appeal in this case, as section 924.07(1), Florida Statutes (2011), and its procedural counterpart, Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c), set forth the limited circumstances in which the State has a right to appeal and neither the statute nor the rule specifically provides the State with a right to appeal a circuit court's order granting early termination of probation. LaFave, 113 So.3d at 34. The Second District observed that the trial court's order terminating LaFave's probation Id. at 36–37.
The Second District decided that the trial court's order “is a rare, postsentencing order which ... constitutes a violation of the plea agreement ... [is] extremely prejudicial to the State, and the ability of the State to seek certiorari review of such an order, where there is no other avenue for relief, is crucial ‘to the fair administration of criminal justice’ and necessary ‘to correct an erroneous and highly prejudicial ruling.’ ” Id. at 37 (citing State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 253 (Fla.1988) ). The district court concluded its discussion of jurisdiction by stating, “we rely on the rationale of Harris,2 Pettis, and Wilson3 and hold that in this rare instance, the State may seek certiorari review of the circuit court order terminating LaFave's probation[,]” and certified the question presented to this Court. Id. at 37 (footnote omitted).
The district court certified a question of great public importance to this Court. Because this is a question of law arising from undisputed facts, this Court reviews the district court's decision de novo. Aills v. Boemi, 29 So.3d 1105, 1108 (Fla.2010).
The Florida Constitution provides district courts with the authority to hear appeals from trial court final orders and to review interlocutory orders of trial courts as provided by the procedural rules. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. The constitution also allows district courts to issue writs of certiorari “necessary to the complete exercise of its jurisdiction.” Art. V, § 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)–(3) more fully outlines the appellate and certiorari jurisdiction of our district courts of appeal and provides:
Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)–(3) (footnotes omitted). The jurisdictional dispute before the Second District centered on the parties' disagreement over how to reconcile subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b)(3) of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030. LaFave argued that because subsection (b)(2)(A) explicitly limits the certiorari jurisdiction of district courts to review non-final orders entered by lower courts, the reference to the original jurisdiction of the district courts to issue writs of certiorari is also limited to cases involving non-final orders. The State, however, argued that such a reading would render the two subsections redundant and does not reflect the true meaning of the rules. Instead, the State argued that subsection (b)(3) provides a district court with original jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, in accordance with its duty to review decisions of lower courts, with no requirement that the order be a non-final one.
The district court did not explicitly agree with either jurisdictional argument, but nonetheless found that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. We find that the jurisprudence of this Court does not support the district court's jurisdictional analysis and we, therefore, quash the decision of the district court.
In 1962, this Court granted jurisdiction in State v. Harris, 136 So.2d 633 (Fla.1962), where the State petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari based on an alleged conflict of decisions, after the district court reversed the defendant's conviction. Id. at 634. This Court questioned “whether the [S]tate has the right to seek certiorari from a decision of a district court in which...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Warmington v. State
-
State v. Hall
... ... 5th ... DCA 2009). Moreover, because Mr. Hall's mitigated ... sentences were illegal, the State's rehearing motion was ... well-taken and should have been granted ... [5] To the extent that Mr. Hall maintains ... that our review is stymied by LaFave v. State, 149 ... So.3d 662 (Fla. 2014), we find that case readily ... distinguishable. There, the State petitioned for a writ of ... certiorari to quash the trial court's order terminating ... Ms. LaFave's probation early, contrary to the terms of ... the plea ... ...
-
State v. Richard, 3D14–2517.
...However, the State may not seek certiorari review of a final order where there is no existing statutory right to appeal. LaFave v. State, 149 So.3d 662 (Fla.2014).3 See § 796.07(5)(c) (providing that a person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of paragraph (2)(f) shall be sentenc......
-
State v. Folkes, s. 4D13–2027
...Certiorari review of an order simply modifying probation or community control is also not available to the State. LaFave v. State, 149 So.3d 662 (Fla.2014), makes it clear that the State has no right to seek certiorari review of a final order from which it has no right of direct appeal. Id.......
-
Pretrial motions and defenses
...where the trial court’s order is a final order and where the state had no statutory right to appeal the order. LaFave v. State, 149 So.3d 662 (Fla. 2014) Regardless of whether the statewide prosecutor has jurisdiction to prosecute a case, the circuit court has jurisdiction to hear a case. T......
-
Appeals
...where the trial court’s order is a final order and where the state had no statutory right to appeal the order. LaFave v. State, 149 So.3d 662 (Fla. 2014) Defendant’s presence required at resentencing where post-conviction court reduces a prison sentence as to one count pursuant to defendant......
-
Judgment and sentence
...where the trial court’s order is a final order and where the state had no statutory right to appeal the order. LaFave v. State, 149 So.3d 662 (Fla. 2014) §948.03(5)(a)7, which prohibits a sex offender from possessing pornographic material, relates only to pornography that is relevant to his......