State v. Williams
Decision Date | 10 June 1970 |
Docket Number | No. 69--145,69--145 |
Citation | 237 So.2d 69 |
Parties | STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Wardell Robert WILLIAMS, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee; William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellant.
Jerome Pratt, Palmetto, for appellee.
Appellee plead nolo contendere to a charge of manslaughter. The trial judge placed him on twenty years probation. The conditions of such probation were that he pay to the fine and forfeiture fund of the county three thousand dollars within three years and report each year to spend sixty days in jail, beginning November 1st of each year. The state has appealed pursuant to the authority of Fla.Stat. § 924.07(5), F.S.A., and assigned the conditions of probation as error.
In order to evaluate properly the unorthodox conditions attached to the order of probation by the trial judge, a distinction must be made between suspension of the imposition of sentence (or suspension of the pronouncement of sentence) by the court and pronouncement of sentence and suspension of its execution. The history of this delineation has been throughly examined in an article by Professor Clark 1 and in case of Bateh v. State, Fla.App.1958, 101 So.2d 869, 870--872. These sources make it quite clear and probation is concerned only with suspension of the imposition or pronouncement of sentence. Moreover, in order that one placed on probation will not necessarily be deprived of certain civil liberties that are withdrawn following conviction of a felony, Fla.Stat. § 948.01(1), F.S.A. allows a court to hear and determine the question of probation either with or without an adjudication of the guilt of the defendant. See also CrPR 1.790, 33 F.S.A. Thus there is a clear distinction between a Sentence on the one hand, which must be preceded by an adjudication of guilt, and Conditions of probation on the other hand, which can be imposed independently of an adjudication of guilt and imposition or pronouncement of sentence.
one would hardly expect the state to be the party appealing an order Sentencing one pleading nolo contendere to manslaughter to payment of a fine And imprisonment. Secondly, Bosso is not applicable to the unique facts presented in this appeal. That case held, and quite correctly, that when a crime is punishable by fine or imprisonment but not both, a court cannot sentence on convicted of that crime to payment of the fine and additionally place him on probation. The court reasoned that if the person so convicted were to violate the conditions of parole, the court would be powerless to punish him further, for to do so would be to inflict two punishments for the same offense. More generally, the court expressed disapproval of such 'piecemeal punishments.' However,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. State, 64042
...for certiorari and not on the lack of certiorari power. E.g., Basnet v. City of Jacksonville, 18 Fla. 523 (1882); State v. Williams, 237 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Marlowe v. Ferreira, 211 So.2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA The majorit......
-
R.L.B. v. State
...State v. Wilcox, 351 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); State ex rel. Wainwright v. Booth, 291 So.2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974); State v. Williams, 237 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970); Marlowe v. Ferreira, 211 So.2d 228 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Cihak, 201 So.2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); ......
-
State v. G.P.
...jurisdiction by certiorari than that provided under the 1957 version.9 Without reason or authority, the courts, in State v. Williams, 237 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), State v. Wilcox, 351 So.2d 89 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), State v. Gibson, 353 So.2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), State v. Farmer, 384 So......
-
State v. Jones
...years in the state prison pursuant to Section 948.06, Florida Statutes. The Second District affirmed. Previously, in State v. Williams, 237 So.2d 69 (Fla.App.2d 1970), the Second District had held that Section 948.03, Florida Statutes, was sufficiently broad to allow a condition which requi......