JOSE MEDINA, 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 held that the trial court lacked authority to impose probation beyond the maximum statutorily permissible term.
Appellant was convicted of grand theft, a felony with a five-year statutory maximum sentence. After violating probation, the court imposed a sentence …
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 Waiver Of Arguments On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant argues that the court had no authority to impose probation beyond the maximum statutorily permissible term. We agree.
Appellant was convicted of grand theft, a third degree felony, the statutory maximum for which is five years. §§ 812.014(2) and 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat.(1989). From January 18, 1990 to August 13, 1991, a period of one year and two hundred and seven days, appellant was on probation. Appellant violated his probation and, on August 13, 1991, the court imposed two years community control followed by two years probation on the grand theft conviction. This illegally extended appellant’s probation by two hundred and seven days. See Servis v. State, 588 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).
Appellant also argues that the court erred by imposing certain special conditions of probation without orally announcing them. He objects to other conditions as being vague or improper. However, appellant failed to either object or file a motion to strike, and has waived these arguments on appeal. See Brunson v. State, 537 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
We vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for proceedings consistent herewith.
PARKER and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 2000)…probation is unconstitutionally vague. Even before the Act, however, the Second District found that a claim that a condition of probation is vague must be preserved for appeal. See Maxlow v. State, 636 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Medina v. State, 604 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The Fifth District cited Maxlow as authority in this case, see Rider, 724 So. 2d at 619, and we agree that this challenge should have been preserved for appellate review in the trial court. We thus approve the opinion in Rider.…
-
Karie Lynn Gibbs v. Gibbs, 686 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…equiring an “extraordinary burden.” In evaluating these earlier cases on the requirement of detriment, it is useful to remember that under the “tender years” doctrine, the mother received young children unless she was “unfit.” See Powell v. Powell, 604 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Hutchins, 220 So. 2d at 440. It appears likely that the emphasis on fitness and the related requirement of detriment were influenced by this doctrine in the earlier cases that involved a change of custody from the mother…
-
Olvey v. State, 609 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…The state’s motion for rehearing en banc argues that this decision conflicts with our earlier decision in Medina v. State, 604 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). It asks that we reinstate the stricken conditions of probation. Although this court denies the requested relief, we grant rehearing en banc to clarify sentencing procedures for special conditions of probation. [*643] This court r…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Servis v. State, 588 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- Brunson v. State, 537 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Alphonso McCREARY v. State, 537 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)