STATE OF FLORIDA, PETITIONER,

v.

M.R.T., A CHILD, RESPONDENT

Fla. 5th DCA | 2003-07-03

No. 5D03-1098

SHARP, W„ PLEUS and TORPY, JJ., concur.

848 So. 2d 467 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2003) Positive Treatment

Cited by 6 cases

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.

Holding

The trial court was without jurisdiction to modify a defendant's sentence of probation during the pendency of an appeal.

Facts & Procedural History

A juvenile was placed on probation and filed a timely appeal. While the appeal was pending, the trial court granted the juvenile's motion to terminate…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Pendency Of Appeal Divestiture Of Jurisdiction Writ Of Certiorari Jurisdiction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pendency Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

The state petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the trial court’s order terminating probation. We grant the petition and quash the order terminating probation, because the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the defendant’s sentence of probation during the pendency of an appeal.

M.R.T., a juvenile, was found guilty of battery, adjudicated delinquent, and placed on probation for one year. M.R.T. filed a timely notice of appeal on October 23, 2002. On March 6, 2003, while M.R.T.’s appeal was pending, the trial court granted M.R.T.’s motion to terminate probation.

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 filing of M.R.T.’s notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to terminate probation. Britt v. State, 687 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dailey v. State, 575 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

We grant the writ, quash the order terminating probation, and remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the original sentence.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

SHARP, W„ PLEUS and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Sanislo v. Give Kids THE World, Inc., 157 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 2015)

…— to the responsible party who should bear the cost because it was that party’s wrongdoing for which the indemnified party is held liable.” Compass Const., 115 So. 3d at 986 (Lewis, J., dissenting) (emphasis added); see also Rosati v. Vaillancourt, 848 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“Indemnity is a right which inures to one who discharges a duty owed by him but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other.” (citing Houdaille Indust., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490, 4…
Berchin v. State, 938 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)

…State v. Watson, 909 So. 2d 942, 945 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (stating that probation is a matter of grace and if a trial judge chooses, it can exercise discretion to extend or modify probation following a violation) (citations omitted); State v. M.R.T., 848 So. 2d 467, 467 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (finding that a trial court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction and terminate probation at any time pursuant to section 948.05, Florida Statutes). A trial court has authority to modify or rescind the terms or conditions…
First Baptist Church OF Cape Coral v. Compass Constr., Inc., 115 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 2013)

…e responsible party who should bear the cost because it was that party’s wrongdoing for which the indemnified party is held hable. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Metropolitan Dade Cnty., 436 So. 2d 976, 978 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); see also Rosati v. Vaillancourt, 848 So. 2d 467, 470 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“indemnity is a right which inures to one who discharges a duty owed by him but which, as between himself and another, should have been discharged by the other” (citing Houdaille Indust., Inc. v. Edwards, 374 So. 2d 490, 49…

Authorities Cited

State v. Swett, 772 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
Dailey v. State, 575 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
State v. Rhodes, 554 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
Burgos v. State, 765 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
Britt v. State, 687 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
Hawn v. State, 840 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
Thompson v. State, 840 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw