ROBERT MUZZO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Robert Muzzo entered a negotiated plea of no contest to violating section 943.0435(3), Florida Statutes (2000), which requires a sexual offender to report to the Department of Motor Vehicles within forty-eight hours after making the report required by section 943.0435(2) after a change in permanent or temporary residence. The terms of the plea agreement were that the defendant would receive two years probation, without special conditions, with adjudication left to the court’s discretion.
Over Muzzo’s objection, the trial court imposed two special conditions of probation not contemplated by the plea agreement. The imposition of the special eondi- tions would have been mandatory if section 948.03(5), Florida Statutes (2000) applied. See § 948.03(5)(a)3 & 5, Fla. Stat. (2000). However, the crime to which Muzzo entered his plea is not one of the crimes enumerated in section 948.03(5)(a). We reverse that portion of Muzzo’s sentence imposing the two conditions of probation at issue and remand to the trial court to strike those conditions. See Lee v. State, 766 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).
DELL, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sturges v. State, 980 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…der probation pursuant to sections 948.30 and 948.31, Florida Statutes (2005). This was error, as aggravated assault is not one of the enumerated felonies for which those statutory provisions are imposed. See § 948.30(1), Fla. Stat.; Muzzo v. State, 773 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We have addressed a similar issue of statutory interpretation in the context of drug related offenses. Both in Ellis v. State, 816 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Epperson v. State, 955 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), we h…
-
Andrews v. State, 792 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…s of Florida Sexual Predators Act were procedural and regulatory in nature, and, therefore, did not constitute “punishment” in violation of ex post facto clause). Because the probation requirements of section 948.03(5) are mandatory, Muzzo v. State, 773 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), because this section imposes no affirmative disability or restraint on defendants, and because its purpose is remedial and regulatory rather than punitive, we hold that Andrews’ resentence does not violate double jeopardy. AFF…
Authorities Cited
- Hormuth v. Hormuth, 766 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- LEE v. State, 766 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)