JOSEPH FISHER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to revoke the defendant's community control, even after a guilty plea to the violation.
[1] A defendant may appeal a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction even after pleading guilty to the violation charge.
[2] Jurisdiction to revoke community control rests with the court that granted the community control when the violation occurs after the effective date of the amendment to se…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJoseph Fisher pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced as a youthful offender. He later violated his community control, pleaded guilty to the viol…
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 Statutory Amendment Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
Joseph Fisher pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary and was sentenced as a youthful offender, pursuant to section 958.05(2), Florida Statutes (1983), to eighteen months imprisonment to be followed by eighteen months of community control. Subsequently, he violated the community control, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to three years imprisonment. He appeals the judgment and sentence, contending that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to revoke his community control. Relying on this court’s decision in Lollis v. State, 449 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), cause dismissed, 453 So. 2d 45 (Fla.1984), he argues that only the Parole and Probation Commission had authority to return him to prison.
Although appellant correctly interpreted our holding in Lollis, he was charged with violating his community control program after October 1, 1983, the effective date of an amendment to section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1988), which is controlling.. Lollis concerned a defendant who was charged with violating his community control prior to October 1, 1983. Section 948.06(1), as amended, specifically vests jurisdiction to revoke community control in “the court granting such probation or community control.” Loveless v. Bryson, 460 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Therefore, the trial court did not err in revoking appellant’s community control and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment. See also Hart v. State, 463 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Moore v. State, 463 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
The state asserts that because appellant pleaded guilty to the community control violation charge, he may not appeal the question of the trial court’s jurisdiction. It is well-settled that a defendant may appeal the court’s subject matter jurisdiction after a guilty plea. Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla.1979).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court is affirmed.
OTT, J., and THOMPSON, JAMES R., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cribbs v. State, 471 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Fisher v. State, 464 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). MILLS, SMITH and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Loveless v. Bryson, 460 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Lollis v. State, 449 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Clement Moore v. State, 463 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Hart v. State, 463 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)