LAWRENCE XAVIER FREEMAN, 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.
Freeman was on probation and admitted to a probation violation. The trial court initially reinstated his probation, but after his attorney indicated Freeman might not pass a drug test scheduled for the next day, the court recalled the case and imposed a 34.5-month prison sentence. The appellate court reversed, holding that jeopardy attached when the initial probation sentence was imposed, preventing the trial court from reimposing a harsher sentence.
The court held that jeopardy attached when the trial court imposed the original probation sentence and concluded the proceedings. Therefore, Freeman could not legally be sentenced again to a harsher penalty, and the original probation sentence must be reinstated. The passage of time between the original sentence and the recalled proceedings, and Freeman's admission that he might test positive, do not affect the attachment of jeopardy.
[1] Jeopardy attaches when a trial court concludes a sentencing hearing by continuing a defendant on probation, thereby preventing a subsequent harsher sentence.
[2] A defendant's admission that they might test positive for a controlled substance the following day does not negate the attachment of jeopardy after a probation violation…
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“Freeman's sentencing for violation of his probation was complete when the trial court continued him on probation and the proceedings concluded. At that point, jeopardy attached, and Freeman could not legally be sentenced again to harsher sentences.”
Establishes the core holding that double jeopardy protections prevented re-sentencing to a harsher penalty once the initial probation sentence was imposed and proceedings concluded.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFreeman was charged by affidavit with violating his probation in two cases, specifically condition twelve. At the violation hearing, Freeman admitted …
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 Attachment Of Jeopardy cases and more on FLexlaw
DAKAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Senior Judge.
Lawrence Xavier Freeman appeals his sentences of 34.5 months in the custody of the Department of Corrections. We reverse and remand for reinstatement of his original sentences.
By Affidavit, Freeman was charged with violating his probation in two cases. At a hearing, he admitted to a violation of condition twelve and his lawyer asked for reinstatement of his original probation. After determining the admission was voluntary, the following occurred:
THE COURT: What are you going to test positive for tomorrow?
THE DEFENDANT: Nothing, sir. THE COURT: You sure, you’re sure enough about that, that you’re willing to risk 15 years in the Florida State Prison?
THE DEFENDANT: Sir?
THE COURT: If you go to probation tomorrow and you test positive, I’m going to sentence you to 15 years in Florida State Prison.
Now, are you going to test positive for anything?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. THE COURT: I’m going to modify it and give him three days, continue him on the same terms and conditions.
Sir, you’re out of your residence one more time, you don’t provide them with the correct address you live at, you come in here for a dirty urine you’re going to prison; do you understand me?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: You report to probation tomorrow at eight a.m. and he’s to be drug tested.
MR. HOWELL: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: If he’s positive, arrest him on the spot.
(THE PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED.)
At some point later, the cases were recalled, apparently by Freeman’s attorney. After noting that the trial court had reinstated Freeman’s probation, his attorney stated that as he was trying to explain the sentences to Freeman, he realized that Freeman might not be able to pass the drug test scheduled for the next day. The record then shows:
THE COURT: And he’s not going to pass a drug test tomorrow?
MR. HOWELL: He may not be able to, Judge.
THE COURT: When he already told me he could. I’m tired of people lying to me.
MR. HOWELL: When I explained to him, Judge, I realized he may not be able to do so, Judge, so I’m asking for to you modify the order and give him 30 days.
THE COURT: No, I already asked him specifically if he was going to test positive tomorrow and he told me no.
THE DEFENDANT: Sir, I did it like two weeks ago so I thought it might be out of my system now....
THE COURT: Too late, too late. What’s he want to do because — let me see the scoresheet.
THE DEFENDANT: Sir, it’s my first violation.
THE COURT: Sir, what’s he want to do? Is he going to maintain — is he admitting to violating Condition 12?
MR. HOWELL: Yes, sir. THE COURT: All right.
MR. HOWELL: He’s just asking for 30 days to get clean. THE COURT: No, I’m not going to do that. I’m going to set aside his previous sentence, adjudicate him guilty. It will be 34.5 months in the Florida State Prison with credit.
Freeman’s sentencing for violation of his probation was complete when the trial court continued him on probation and the proceedings concluded. At that point, jeopardy attached, and Freeman could not legally be sentenced again to harsher sentences. Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265, 1267 (Fla.2003). The fact that apparently a relatively brief period of time may have passed before the cases were recalled does not affect the attachment of jeopardy, Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857, 860 (Fla.1973), and neither does the fact that Freeman admitted that he might test positive the next day. See Obara v. State, 958 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007).
Accordingly, we reverse Freeman’s sentences and remand for reinstatement of Freeman’s probation as ordered by the trial court in its original disposition of the violation of probation.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitehead v. State, 21 So. 3d 157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…trial court did not rule on the motion. . The defendant argues that the resumed sentencing hearing was actually a rehearing, relying on Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003), Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1973), and Freeman v. State, 980 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). We disagree. Unlike Ashley, the defendant had not begun to serve his sentence. This case is also unlike Troupe and Freeman, where the sentencing hearings had concluded, time had passed, and the lawyers requested the court to revi…
-
State v. Daniels, 33 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…nsel moved to dismiss the pending amended affidavit of VOP, arguing that because the new charges occurred during a prior term of probation, further prosecution was barred. Counsel cited to the circuit court this court’s decision in Freeman v. State, 980 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), as support for dismissing the new amended affidavit. Analysis Initially, we observe that section 948.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), provides three dispositional alternatives when a probationer admits the charged VOP: the co…1 / 3
Authorities Cited
- Columbus Rickey Ashley v. State, 850 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 2003)
- Flazell Troupe v. The Honorable Ellen Morphonios Rowe & the Honorable Paul Baker, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1973)
- Tywan Obara v. State, 958 So. 2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)