KEVIN PAUL LACK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court reversed a misdemeanor DUI conviction, finding the lower court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the offense did not arise from the same circumstances as a prior felony. The court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea.
The circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the misdemeanor DUI conviction. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to withdraw the plea.
[1] A circuit court's jurisdiction over misdemeanor charges is limited to those arising out of the same circumstances as a felony that is also charged, and a misdemeanor char…
[2] Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver, acquiescence, or agreement of the parties.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“The circuit court’s jurisdiction over misdemeanors is limited to those that ‘aris[e] out of the same circumstances as a felony which is also charged.’”
Establishes the legal standard for circuit court jurisdiction over misdemeanors in relation to felonies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor DUI. He argued that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because the DUI offense did not arise from the …
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 Misdemeanor Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the circuit court’s jurisdiction over his 2020 misdemeanor DUI conviction, because it did not arise from the same circumstances as a prior 2018 domestic battery felony. He also argues that the circuit court erred by failing to grant his motion to withdraw his plea. We affirm the circuit court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea without further discussion, but reverse and remand the misdemeanor conviction.
Whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction is reviewed de novo. Jacobsen v. Ross Stores, 882 So. 2d 431, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). “The circuit court’s jurisdiction over misdemeanors is limited to those that ‘aris[e] out of the same circumstances as a felony which is also charged.’” Barlow v. State, 171 So. 3d 777, 778
(Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (quoting § 26.012(1)(d), Fla. Stat. (2020)); see also Art. V, § 5(b), Fla. Const. Here, during Appellant’s arrest for violating a domestic violence injunction, officers noticed that he was impaired and arrested him for driving under the influence. Appellant’s misdemeanor charge did not arise out of the same circumstances as the underlying 2018 domestic battery felony.* See Hicks v. State, 990 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that misdemeanor possession of marijuana charge that occurred while Appellant was being arrested for a prior felony did not arise out of the same circumstances).
Furthermore, Appellant’s acquiescence to the circuit court’s jurisdiction over the misdemeanor DUI charge did not provide the court with subject-matter jurisdiction. Seven Hills, Inc. v. Bentley, 848 So. 2d 345, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“Subject matter jurisdiction, which arises only as a matter of law, cannot be created by waiver, acquiescence or agreement of the parties, by error in inadvertence of the parties or their counsel, or by the exercise of the power of the court.”).
Because the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over Appellant’s misdemeanor DUI charge, this Court must reverse and remand the conviction for further proceedings in the correct court. Ingraham v. State, 122 So. 3d 934, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); White v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
REVERSE and REMAND.
* This outcome does not change where the misdemeanor charge was used to support Appellant’s violation of probation from the 2018 felony because violations of probation are considered separate and distinct from the conviction of a new charge. See Green v. State, 463 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 1985) (addressing double jeopardy and stating that a defendant is not subject to conviction or punishment for his new criminal conduct during a revocation proceeding); see also State v. Roesle, 799 So. 2d 447, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
LEWIS and BILBREY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Seven Hills, Inc. v. Bentley, 848 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Jacobsen v. Ross Stores & Sedgwick Claims, 882 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Green v. State, 463 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1985)
- Clem Gloster v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Ingraham v. State, 122 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Hicks v. State, 990 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Barlow v. State, 171 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- State v. Roesle, 799 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)