CHRISTOPHER P. THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
CHRISTOPHER P. THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
840 So. 2d 352
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2003)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PLEUS, J.
The defendant seeks review of an order denying his motion to modify his community control and probation. The motion was addressed to the condition that the defendant visit his psychiatrist twice monthly and sought to reduce this requirement on the basis that it was no longer necessary. See § 948.03(6), Fla. Stat. (2002). A trial court’s decision to reduce or ameliorate a lawful condition of community control or probation is entirely a matter of grace for which an appeal will not lie. Burgos v. State, 765 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Langley v. State, 721 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
GRIFFIN and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. M.R.T., 848 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…The authority conferred upon the trial court to terminate probation is a matter of grace. § 948.05, Fla. Stat. (2002). Thus, the court’s decision is not appealable. Burgos v. State, 765 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). See also, Thompson v. State, 840 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). However, where the court is without jurisdiction to exercise that discretion, review by certiorari is appropriate. See, State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Rhodes, 554 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The…
-
Long v. State, 846 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Hawn v. State, 840 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Buchanan v. State, 781 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). SHARP, W., GRIFFIN and MONACO, JJ., concur.…
-
Connolly v. State, 885 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…als the summary denial of his latest Rule 3.800(a) motion to correct illegal sentence. We begin by noting that Connolly’s successive factual claims about his earlier Georgia sentences are not cognizable under Rule 3.800(a). See, e.g., Hawn v. State, 840 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (claim that sentence was illegal based on allegedly erroneous assessment of certain score-sheet points was improperly brought under Rule 3.800(a) because error, if it exists, cannot be ascertained from face of the record). Connol…
Authorities Cited
- Burgos v. State, 765 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Bolton v. State, 721 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)