BARRY L. SMITH, 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.
Barry Smith appealed the denial of his motion challenging his habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) sentence based on prior convictions where he claimed adjudication was withheld and probation was successfully completed. The court affirmed the denial, finding that Smith's prior armed burglary conviction was valid for HVFO purposes because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to retroactively withhold adjudication and Smith was ineligible for such a withhold due to his prison sentence.
The court affirmed the denial of Smith's motion, holding that the armed burglary conviction validly qualified as a predicate for HVFO sentencing because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to retroactively withhold adjudication more than three years after the original adjudication, and Smith was ineligible for a withhold of adjudication because he received more than one year in prison on his original sentence.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to withhold adjudication more than three years after the original adjudication.
[2] A trial court cannot withhold adjudication for an offense when the defendant received more than one year in prison on the original sentence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 trial court in 92-32777-B did not have jurisdiction more than three years after the original adjudication to withhold adjudication for the armed burglary”
Establishes that the trial court lacked authority to retroactively withhold adjudication long after the original conviction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith challenged his HVFO sentence arguing that prior convictions used as predicates should not qualify because adjudication was withheld and he compl…
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 Withheld Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Barry Smith appeals the denial of his rule 3.800(a) motion challenging his habitual violent felony offender (HVFO) sentence. Smith argued that the prior convictions on which the state relied as predicates could not be used to qualify him as an HVFO because in each case adjudication was withheld and he successfully completed probation. See Overstreet v. State, 629 So. 2d 125 (Fla.1993). Smith attached an unsigned probation order indicating that he was placed on probation and adjudication was withheld in case number 92-32777-B. In response, the state provided a certified copy of Smith’s original conviction in that case, which showed that he was adjudicated guilty of armed burglary and additional offenses. This conviction would qualify him for HVFO sentencing.
The trial court concluded that the record provided by the state refuted Smith’s claim. The court explained that the document on which Smith relied did not show he was entitled to relief because the trial court in 92-32777-B did not have jurisdiction more than three years after the original adjudication to withhold adjudication for the armed burglary. We agree. See Sanchez v. State, 541 So. 2d 1140 (Fla.1989). In addition, contrary to Smith’s argument, the trial court had no authority to withhold adjudication on the armed burglary because Smith received more than one year in prison on the original youthful offender sentence imposed in 92-32777-B. As a result, he did not qualify for a withhold of adjudication. See State v. Vedace, 727 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); State v. Davis, 721 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); State v. Oates, 610 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992).
The denial of Smith’s rule 3.800(a) motion is affirmed.
WARNER, KLEIN and TAYLOR, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 97 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…initially claimed that adjudication was withheld in his Broward County predicate offenses and, therefore, those offenses should not have been used to classify him as an HVFO. We previously determined that this claim lacks merit. See Smith v. State, 973 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (finding that although the trial court purported to withhold adjudication three years after he served a youthful offender sentence, which was longer than one year, the court was without jurisdiction to do so). Appellant n…
Authorities Cited
- Overstreet v. State, 629 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1993)
- Sanchez v. State, 541 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 1989)
- Square D Co. v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 610 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- State v. Oates, 610 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- State v. Cleveland Davis, 721 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- State v. Vedace, 727 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)