JOSEPH SIGNORELLI, 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 court affirmed the probation revocation based on battery but reversed the assessment of costs and denial of gain time.
Appellant spat in the face of his community control assistant director and made a remark to two boys, leading to probation revocation. The trial court…
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 Assessment Of Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
[*350] PER CURIAM.
We affirm appellant’s probation revocation on the ground of his battery upon the assistant director of the community control program in which appellant had been placed. Appellant spat in the assistant director’s face when he learned of his having violated the terms of appellant’s community control. The basis for that violation, and the additional ground upon which the revocation was based, involved a remark made by appellant to two boys. We view the remark as an inadequate basis for revocation. What is. not questionable, however, based upon the “three chances” given appellant — to which reference was made in the trial court — is that the result would have been the same were only the battery involved. The trial court’s frustration with appellant was obvious, and appears to have been based on previous experiences with appellant.
With respect to the assessment of costs and denial of gain time, we reverse, because of non-compliance with Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984), and' because these penalties were based upon section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes (1985), enacted after the offenses were committed by appellant. We agree with Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986), that to apply that statute in such case would constitute a violation of the ex post facto clause. We certify to the Supreme Court of Florida as being of great public importance the same question posed in Yost:
Does the application of Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985), to crimes committed prior to the effective date of the statute violate the ex post facto provisions of the constitutions of the United States and of the State of Florida, or does the statute merely effect a procedural change as is permitted under State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985)?
GLICKSTEIN, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Stone v. State, 500 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…493 So. 2d 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) [consolidating sixteen cases]; Miller v. State, 492 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Gordon v. State, 497 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Signorelli v. State, 491 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Moseley v. State, 491 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); McDowell v. [*574] State, 491 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Freeney v. State, 493 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Williams v. State, 492 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Robin…
-
Rutledge v. State, 512 So. 2d 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s conviction and sentence on the authority of Hostzclaw v. State, 351 So. 2d 970 (Fla.1977). However, we reverse the imposition of costs pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1985). See Signorelli v. State, 491 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART. HERSEY, C.J., and DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Shayne Mohansingh v. State, 824 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…concession that spitting on an officer is a battery. See Spivey v. State, 789 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(noting that a defendant could be sentenced to a concurrent term for battery because he spat upon an officer); see also Signorelli v. State, 491 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(spitting directly into the face of the assistant director of the defendant’s community control program was a battery). Mohansingh argues that since there was no testimony that he put his hands on anyone, or testimony that the spi…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Yost v. State, 489 So. 2d 131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)