DANIEL DELGADO, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Daniel Delgado appealed the revocation of his community control and sentences imposed following a warrantless search of his residence that revealed marijuana. The court affirmed the revocation and sentences, holding that the warrantless search of a probationer's residence was valid and that the sentencing did not violate statutory limits or double jeopardy principles.
The warrantless search of Delgado's residence was valid as applied to a probationer, and the evidence obtained was admissible in probation revocation proceedings. The sentence did not exceed statutory maximums and the imposition of consecutive sentences was proper.
[1] A challenge to the legality of a search must be preserved for appellate review by presenting the specific ground for the challenge to the trial court.
[2] A warrantless search of a probationer's residence by probation officers is valid.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the warrantless search of a probationer's residence was valid pursuant to Soca v. State, 673 So.2d 24 (Fla.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 910, 117 S.Ct. 273, 136 L.Ed.2d 196 (1996), and the evidence adduced in that search was admissible in probation revocation proceedings below”
Establishes the legal basis for upholding the warrantless search and admissibility of evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDelgado was sentenced to three years in prison, followed by two years of community control and two years probation, for attempted second degree murder…
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 Statutory Maximum Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Daniel Delgado appeals a revocation of community control and the sentences imposed thereon. We affirm.
Delgado was sentenced to three years in prison, followed by two years of community control and two years probation, on charges of attempted second degree murder and possession of a firearm while engaged in a criminal offense. An affidavit of violation of community control was filed, asserting that Delgado was in possession of marijuana. Three probation officers and police officers searched defendant’s residence. The search revealed marijuana and other items. Delgado moved to suppress the evidence. The court denied the motion finding that a probationer’s home can be randomly searched by probation officers. The court found that Delgado had violated his community control and probation and sentenced him. Delgado appeals.
We find no error with the denial of the suppression motion. As a threshold matter, Delgado’s challenge to the legality of the search of his residence was not preserved for our review. See § 924.051(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005); Jones v. State, 883 So. 2d 369, 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (to preserve issue for appellate review specific ground upon which it is based must be presented to trial court). Moreover, even if this issue had been properly preserved, the warrantless search of a probationer’s residence was valid pursuant to Soca v. State, 673 So. 2d 24 (Fla.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 910, 117 S.Ct. 273, 136 L.Ed.2d 196 (1996), and the evidence adduced in that search was admissible in probation revocation proceedings below. Id.
Furthermore, we find no error in the sentence imposed. The sentence, as modified in the order on Delgado’s motion to correct sentencing error, did not exceed the statutory maximum for the convictions. § 775.082(3)(c), Fla. Stat. (1999). The imposition of consecutive sentences is also not error as each offense contains an element the other does not. See § 775.021(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (1999); Ferguson v. State, 420 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1982) (multiple convictions and consecutive sentences do not violate double jeopardy); Borges v. State, 415 So. 2d 1265 (Fla.1982) (same).
Finding no merit to the other issues raised on appeal, the revocation and sentences are affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Borges v. State, 415 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1982)
- Soca v. State, 673 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1996)
- Ferguson v. State, 420 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1982)
- Jones v. State, 883 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)
- Bowersox v. Driscoll, 519 U.S. 910 (U.S. 1996)
- Movsesian v. Hamer, 519 U.S. 910 (U.S. 1996)