TIMOTHY M. BALES, 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.
Timothy Bales appealed the revocation of his probation and resulting prison sentence, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to place him on probation in the first place. The court agreed, finding the probation order void because it was entered outside the 60-day window for modifying sentences, and therefore reversed the revocation and reinstated the original sentence.
The court lacked jurisdiction to enter the probation order because it was entered outside the 60-day period within which courts may modify sentences. Therefore, the probation order was void, and consequently the order revoking probation and any sentence imposed upon that revocation were also void.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to mitigate a sentence sixty days after it is initially imposed.
[2] An order placing a defendant on probation entered after the court has lost jurisdiction to mitigate the sentence is void.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the court lost jurisdiction to mitigate Bales' sentence 60 days after it was initially imposed, the probation order dated January 3, 1984 was void.”
Establishes the core holding that the probation order exceeded the court's jurisdictional authority because it was entered more than 60 days after sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBales pleaded guilty to disorderly intoxication and battery on a law enforcement officer and received a bargained sentence on August 9, 1983. He filed…
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 Void Order cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
Bales appeals a judgment and sentence entered after revocation of his probation. He contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order which placed him on probation, and therefore also lacked jurisdiction to revoke the probation and impose a prison sentence. We agree and reverse.
Bales entered a plea of guilty to charges of disorderly intoxication and battery on a law enforcement officer. In exchange for that plea the trial judge agreed to a plea bargain which provided that Bales would receive a sentence of two years on the felony battery charge and of time served on the misdemeanor intoxication charge. The bargained-for sentence was imposed on August 9, 1983.
On September 9, 1983 Bales filed a pro se motion for mitigation of sentence in which he represented that he was actively pursuing counseling and treatment for his alcoholism. By order filed on October 10, 1983, this motion was denied by the trial judge with leave to refile the motion within 60 days.
On November 16, 1983 a different judge denied appellant’s second motion for mitigation on its merits, stating in his order that it would be inappropriate to grant the motion since all factual matters set forth therein had been considered at the time of the initial sentencing.
On December 20, 1983 the trial judge entered an order directing the Sheriff of Washington County to take custody of Bales from the Department of Corrections and bring him before the court for resentencing.
On January 3, 1984 the trial judge entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing Bales on probation, with the only special condition of probation being that he seek alcohol/drug counseling. The January 3 order makes no reference to either of the motions for mitigation or to the other judge’s order denying mitigation on the merits. This order was entered almost four months after the original judgment and sentence were filed.
Because the court lost jurisdiction to mitigate Bales’ sentence 60 days after it was initially imposed, the probation order dated January 3, 1984 was void. Since the order placing Bales on probation was void, the order revoking his probation and the sentence imposed are also void. Wilson v. State, 487 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, the order purporting to place Bales on probation, the order revoking that probation, and the judgment and sentence entered upon the revocation of probation are reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate Bales’ original judgment and sentence with credit for all time hé has served.
SHIVERS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells v. State, 495 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…of the 60-day period following the original sentence. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b). Thus, the order placing appellant on probation was void and the subsequent order adjudicating him guilty and imposing a 15-year sentence was also void. Bales v. State, 489 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), and Wilson v. State, 487 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, the judgment and sentence entered upon a finding of a violation of probation are reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the origina…
Authorities Cited
- Wilson v. State, 487 So. 2d 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)