CURTIS PEPPERS, 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.
Curtis Peppers challenged his probation revocation in Florida after being charged with DUI while on probation in Ohio, arguing that Ohio's punishment for the same conduct violated double jeopardy. The appellate court rejected the double jeopardy claim because Ohio lacked authority to revoke Florida's probation, and remanded for entry of a written revocation order.
Double jeopardy does not bar Florida's probation revocation because Ohio, as the receiving state under the Compact, lacked jurisdictional authority to revoke probation imposed by Florida. The probation revocation is affirmed but remanded for entry of a proper written order of revocation.
[1] Jeopardy attaches only when a court acts within its jurisdiction and authority.
[2] A receiving state under the Interstate Parole and Probation Compact does not have the authority to revoke probation imposed by the sending state.
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“Jeopardy, however, can only attach when a court acts in a manner within its jurisdiction and authority.”
Establishes the foundational principle that double jeopardy protection requires the court imposing jeopardy to have jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePeppers pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter and was sentenced to two years incarceration plus five years probation. After release, he moved to Ohio, an…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
After being charged with DUI manslaughter, appellant pled guilty and was sentenced to two years incarceration followed by five years probation. When he was released, appellant was permitted to move to Ohio, which assumed the duties of visitation and supervision of his probation pursuant to the Interstate Parole and Probation Compact. § 949.07(2), Fla.Stat. (1992). While in Ohio appellant was charged with DUI, which resulted in this revocation of probation in Florida.
Appellant argues that Ohio’s incarcerating him for five days after his arrest and requiring him to complete a 5 month outpatient rehabilitation program in Ohio bars the revocation of his probation in Florida under double jeopardy. Jeopardy, however, can only attach when a court acts in a manner within its jurisdiction and authority. Vinson v. State, 345 So. 2d 711 (Fla.1977). The Compact does not give a receiving state, such as Ohio, the authority to revoke probation imposed by a sending state. How the Compact functions was explained in Kolovrat v. State, 574 So. 2d 294, 296 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), as follows:
Under the Interstate Parole and Probation Compact, Kansas, as the receiving state, assumed the duties of visitation and supervision over defendant. See § 949.07(2), Fla. State. (1989). Florida Administrative Code Rule 23-4.001 provides an effective, businesslike method for permitting persons under supervision to leave one state and take up residence in another state with assurance that they will be supervised in the receiving state and can be returned to the sending state in case of sufficient violation. One of the functions of the receiving state is to properly report all violators to the original sending state, with appropriate recommendations. Fla.Admin.Code Rule 23-4.003(5). Because Ohio had no jurisdiction under section 949.07 to revoke appellant’s probation, whatever action was taken in Ohio could not have put appellant in jeopardy in regard to Florida revoking his probation.
Appellant also argues that the trial court erred in failing to enter a written order revoking his probation, and the State concedes error. We therefore affirm the revocation but remand for entry of a written order of revocation. Mendoza Madoses v. State, 511 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).
POLEN and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 717 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…in the trial court’s revocation of probation. See Howard v. State, 484 So. 2d 1232 (Fla.1986); Miller v. State, 661 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). We remand for the entry of a written order revoking the defendant’s probation. See Peppers v. State, 696 So. 2d 444, 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). STONE, C.J., and WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Babb v. State, 720 So. 2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…Appellant argues the trial court erred in failing to enter a written order revoking his probation and the state concedes the error. The revocation is affirmed and this case is remanded for entry of a written order of revocation. Peppers v. State, 696 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Mendoza Madoses v. State, 511 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. GUNTHER, WARNER, JJ., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., JR., Senior Judge, concur.…
-
Ridgeway v. State, 712 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…rol because his certified driving record, in combination with sections 322.251(1) and (2), Florida Statutes, reflects that he had notice that his license was suspended. However, we remand for entry of a written order of revocation. Peppers v. State, 696 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). STONE, C.J., and GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hutchins v. State, 345 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1977)
- Kolovrat v. State, 574 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Ronol Mendoza Madoses v. State, 511 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)