STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
MARK EDWARD MORROW, 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 State appealed a sentence imposed on Mark Morrow after his plea of nolo contendere to aggravated battery and related charges. The trial court suspended the entire sentence and placed Morrow on unsupervised probation, which violated Florida law requiring that a defendant receiving a suspended sentence be placed under supervision of a public or private entity.
The trial court erred by suspending the entire sentence and placing the defendant on unsupervised probation because Florida Statute Section 948.01(7) requires that a defendant receiving a suspended sentence be placed under the custody of the Department of Corrections or another public or private entity.
[1] A trial court errs by suspending the imposition of a sentence and placing a defendant on probation or community control without placing the defendant under the custody of…
[2] When a sentence is reversed due to an unauthorized suspension, a defendant who entered a plea based on the understanding of that suspended sentence must be given the oppo…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“In no case shall the imposition of sentence be suspended and the defendant placed on probation or into community control unless such defendant is placed under the custody of the department or another public or private entity.”
This statutory provision established the mandatory requirement violated by the trial court's imposition of an unsupervised suspended sentence.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Edward Morrow entered a plea of nolo contendere to aggravated battery, resisting arrest without violence, and battery on a law enforcement office…
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 Suspended Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PADOVANO, Judge.
The state appeals the sentence imposed by the trial court on the ground that it is not authorized by the applicable sentencing statute, and on the additional ground that it amounts to an unsupported departure from the range of sentences permitted under the sentencing guidelines. We agree that the sentence was not authorized by statute and because we must reverse on that ground, we find it unnecessary to address the departure issue.
Mark Edward Morrow, the defendant, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of aggravated battery, resisting arrest without violence, and battery on a law enforcement officer. He tendered this plea after the trial court had announced, over the state’s objection, that the sentence would be suspended. The court accepted the plea and imposed a sentence of 30.7 months in the Department of Corrections, suspending the entire term and placing the defendant on unsupervised probation. As a condition of probation, the defendant was ordered to refrain from committing further acts of violence on his wife, the victim of the aggravated battery.
Section 948.01(7), Florida Statutes, provides that “[i]n no case shall the imposition of sentence be suspended and the defendant placed on probation or into community control unless such defendant is placed under the custody of the department or another public or private entity.” See also Helton v. State, 106 So. 2d 79 (Fla.1958); Bateh, v. State, 101 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Phillips v. State, 455 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Based on these authorities we conclude that the trial court erred by failing to place the defendant under the supervision of the Department of Corrections or a similar entity.
Consequently, we remand this case for further proceedings in the trial court. Because the defendant entered his plea of nolo contendere with the understanding that he would receive the suspended sentence imposed by the court, the defendant must be given the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See State v. Honiker, 675 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The trial court may impose any lawful sentence on remand if the defendant is found guilty at trial or if the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere.
Reversed.
MINER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mussa C. Bateh v. State, 101 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Helton v. State, 106 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 1958)
- Cleveland Campbell and Eleanor Campbell v. Escambia Cnty., 675 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Phillips v. State, 455 So. 2d 656 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)