RONALD EPPERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Epperson appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court holds that drug offender probation cannot be imposed for grand theft because grand theft is not a drug-related offense under Florida law, and reverses for the trial court to either strike the unlawful probation condition or allow Epperson to withdraw his plea.
A trial court lacks authority to impose drug offender probation for grand theft because grand theft is not enumerated as a drug-related offense under section 948.034, and a reasonable nexus must exist between special probation conditions and the underlying crime. Such an illegal sentence is cognizable under a rule 3.800(a) motion and entitles the defendant to relief.
[1] Drug offender probation may not be imposed for a violation of an offense not enumerated in the drug offender probation statute.
[2] A reasonable nexus must exist between any special condition of probation and the crime for which it is imposed.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A court may not impose drug offender probation other than for the violation of a drug related offense listed in the drug offender probation statute, section 948.034, and grand theft is not enumerated as a drug related offense.”
Establishes the core legal principle that drug offender probation is limited to drug-related offenses specified in the statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEpperson was charged with burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the state reduced the burglary charge to attempted bu…
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 Drug Offender Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ronald Epperson appeals from an order summarily denying his motion to correct illegal sentence, filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Epperson was charged with (I) burglary of a dwelling and (II) grand theft. Pursuant to a negotiated plea, the state reduced count I to attempted burglary, and Epper-son was sentenced to five years as a prison releasee reoffender for the first count and to a consecutive term of drug offender probation for count II, with the special condition of attending and completing Palm Beach County’s drug farm. After the time expired for filing a rule 3.850 motion, he filed a rule 3.800(a) motion, challenging as illegal the fact that his probation imposed for count II is drug offender probation and the fact that it was imposed with the special condition of attending and completing Palm Beach County’s drug farm. The trial court summarily denied the motion without any explanation or attachments, and Epperson appealed.
A court may not impose drug offender probation other than for the violation of a drug related offense listed in the drug offender probation statute, section 948.034, and grand theft is not enumerated as a drug related offense. Ellis v. State, 816 So. 2d 759, 761-62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Parker v. State, 839 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Further, a reasonable nexus must exist between any special condition of probation and the crime for which it is imposed. See Bell v. State, 652 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).
The imposition of drug offender probation and related conditions, when the trial court lacks authority to do so, is cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See Anderson v. State, 941 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Parker. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. Unless the trial court is able to attach portions of the record that refute Epperson’s claim, he appears to be entitled to relief. If Epper-son is entitled to relief from this drug offender probation, and if the sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea, the trial court should either strike the unlawful drug offender portion of the probation and the related drug farm condition if the state agrees, or permit Epperson to withdraw his plea and proceed on the original charges. E.g., Gifford v. State, 744 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (reversing summary denial of rule 3.800(a) motion challenging fifteen-year sentence imposed for third degree felony pursuant to negotiated plea, with directions to impose lawful sentence if the state agrees or to allow defendant to withdraw plea and proceed on original charges); Philius v. State, 936 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (reversing summary denial of rule 3.800(a) motion because three-year minimum mandatory sentence was not authorized by the statute defendant was convicted of violating, and remanding for resentencing; providing, however, that the state may either agree to the resentencing or withdraw from the plea agreement).
Reversed and Remanded for Further Proceedings.
SHAHOOD, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carson v. State, 37 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or for resentencing. Contrary to the majority’s assertion, if the court imposed statutory drug offender probation, even pursuant to a negotiated plea, then Appellant’s claim would have merit. Epperson v. State, 955 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). A trial court may order a probationer to complete a drug treatment program as a special condition of ordinary probation, as a condition of drug offender probation pursuant to sections 948.034 and 948.20, Florida Statutes, o…
-
Sturges v. State, 980 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…. 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 held that a court may not impose drug offender probation pursuant to section 948.034 on conviction for crimes other than those listed in the drug offender probation statute. We interpret the sex offender probation statute in…
-
Beals v. State, 14 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…4 also provides for the conditions of drug offender probation. “A court may not impose drug offender probation other than for the violation of a drug related offense listed in the drug offender probation statute, section 948.034.” Epperson v. State, 955 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). As the supreme court has explained, however, “[t]here are three avenues in which the trial court may order a probationer to complete a drug treatment program: (1) as a special condition of ordinary probation; (2) as a cond…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ellis v. State, 816 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Parker v. State, 839 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Bell v. State, 652 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Gifford v. State, 744 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Anderson v. State, 941 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Jynio Philius v. State, 936 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)