GARLAND H. PRIDGEN, PETITIONER,
v.
CITY OF AUBURNDALE, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the conviction under the city ordinance but vacated the sentence because the fine exceeded the statutory maximum, probation was unauthorized for municipal ordinance violations, and the city code did not authorize probation.
A sentence imposed for violation of a municipal ordinance is illegal if it includes a fine exceeding the statutory maximum, probation not authorized by state law for such violations, or probation not authorized by the city code.
[1] Probation is not authorized for violation of a municipal ordinance because Chapter 948, Florida Statutes limits probation to criminal violations of state law, and municip…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner was convicted of violating a city ordinance that provided for a maximum sentence of sixty days in jail and a $500 fine. He was sentenced to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of City Ordinance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
’ This petition for writ of certiorari, brought to review a circuit court affirmance of a county court judgment finding petitioner guilty of violating a city ordinance, challenges both the judgment and sentence. We find that the judgment does not depart from the essential requirements of law, but the sentence was illegal.
The city ordinance in question provides for a maximum sentence of sixty days in jail and a $500.00 fine. Petitioner was sentenced to fifteen days in the county jail as a condition of six months’ probation and ordered to pay a $547.00 fine. The fine on its face is in excess of the statutory maximum. Additionally, the state has confessed error as to the six months’ probation in that probation is not authorized for violation of a municipal ordinance. Chapter 948, Florida Statutes (1981), only authorizes probation for a defendant where he has been found guilty of a criminal violation of state law and a municipal ordinance violation is not a criminal violation. See § 775.08, Fla. Stat. (1981). Moreover, the city code herein does not authorize placing a person on probation.
Accordingly, certiorari is denied in part, granted in part, and the cause remanded for resentencing in accordance with the above opinion.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Muoio, 438 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…e, 393 So. 2d 540 (Fla.1981) (holding that the word “shall” in the rule of criminal procedure concerning jury instructions makes it mandatory that the trial court give the instruction on maximum and minimum penalties); Pridgen v. City of Auburndale, 430 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (holding illegal, inter alia, the placement of a violator of a city ordinance on probation where the city code authorized fines and jail terms but did not authorize placing a defendant on probation). All statutory references to c…
-
Williams v. The City OF Fort Lauderdale, 702 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ernate penalty, neither the city code nor the South Florida Building Code provided for probation at the time petitioner was sentenced. Thus, the imposition of probation upon petitioner was an unauthorized sentence. See Pridgen v. City of Auburndale, 430 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, we quash the circuit court’s denial of the writ of prohibition, and remand with directions for the county court to strike the sanctions of probation imposed, as well as the now pending violations of this unauthorized…
-
Freshman v. State of Fla. Corrected (11th Cir. Ct. App. Div. 2018)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence