Murphy v. State
| Decision Date | 28 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D06-2589.,2D06-2589. |
| Parties | Robert MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Brad Permar, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Robert Murphy appeals his conviction and sentence for driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages, third or subsequent conviction, and driving while license suspended, third or subsequent conviction. See §§ 316.193(2)(b)(1), 322.34(2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2005). Mr. Murphy raises five claims, only one of which has merit. The trial court erroneously imposed a no early termination of probation condition. We reverse on that point.
The trial court orally pronounced a sentence of eleven months and twenty-nine days in county jail followed by five years of probation. The written judgment and sentence included the additional condition of no early termination of probation. Mr. Murphy challenged this condition in a motion to correct sentencing error. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2). The trial judge denied relief, concluding that Mr. Murphy waived the issue by not objecting at the sentencing hearing. The sentencing transcript reflects, however, that Mr. Murphy could not object earlier because the trial court did not orally pronounce this condition. Therefore, he properly raised and preserved the issue for appeal. See Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800 & Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), 9.140, & 9.600, 761 So.2d 1015, 1016, 1017 (Fla.2000) ().
The trial court may not impose a special condition of probation that purports to divest the Department of Corrections (DOC) of its authority to recommend early termination of Mr. Murphy's probation.1 See § 948.04(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); Swedish v. State, 724 So.2d 640, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Baker v. State, 619 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Additionally, the trial court may not prevent the circuit court from exercising its discretion to discharge Mr. Murphy in the future. See § 948.05, Fla. Stat. (1991); Baker, 619 So.2d at 412.
The State concedes error. Therefore, we direct the trial court, on remand, to strike the special condition of probation and to correct the sentence and probation order so that the DOC is aware that the special condition no longer exists. We affirm on Mr. Murphy's remaining claims without further discussion.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
1. This special condition is a substantive error that is correctable on appeal where preserved with a rule 3.800(b)(2) m...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lafave
...prevent future courts from exercising discretion to discharge defendants pursuant to section 948.05. See, e.g., Murphy v. State, 976 So. 2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Swedish v. State, 724 So. 2d 640, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Jones v. State, 666 So. 2d 191, 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Baker ......
-
State v. Lafave
...prevent future courts from exercising discretion to discharge defendants pursuant to section 948.05. See, e.g., Murphy v. State, 976 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Swedish v. State, 724 So.2d 640, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Jones v. State, 666 So.2d 191, 192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Baker v. ......
-
Roberts v. Department of Highway Safety, 2D07-5573.
... ... District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District ... March 28, 2008 ... A.R. Mander, III of Greenfelder, Mander, Murphy, Dwyer & Morris, Dade City, for Appellant ... Judson Chapman, General Counsel, and Thomas C. Mielke, Assistant General Counsel, ... 976 So.2d 1242 ... the petition. See Clinton v. State, 421 So.2d 186, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (recognizing that citizens have a "right to arrest a person who commits a misdemeanor in their presence when ... ...
- O.P. v. State
-
Judgment and sentence
...divest DOC for the right to seek and early termination, and cannot prevent a future judge from terminating early. Murphy v. State, 976 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) While on administrative probation under §948.001(1), the defendant must comply with all terms of probation, but he need not r......