MICHAEL A. HICKS, 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.
Michael Hicks appeals his convictions for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and marijuana possession. The appellate court affirmed the felony conviction but reversed the misdemeanor conviction because the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the marijuana possession charge, which arose from a separate date and circumstance.
The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the marijuana possession misdemeanor because it did not arise out of the same circumstances as the aggravated assault felony. A defendant cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court by voluntary plea, consent, or waiver, so Hicks' conviction for marijuana possession is void.
[1] A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate a misdemeanor offense unless it arises out of the same circumstances as any felonies charged in the same charging documen…
[2] A defendant cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on a court by waiver or consent.
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“The circuit court's jurisdiction over misdemeanors is limited to those misdemeanors arising out of the same circumstances as any felonies charged in the same charging document.”
Establishes the jurisdictional limitation that the circuit court must follow when adjudicating misdemeanors alongside felonies.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHicks was charged in a single information with aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer (a second-degree felony occurring April 26, 2006) and p…
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 Possession Of Less Than Twenty Grams Of Marijuana cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLACE, Judge.
Michael A. Hicks appeals the judgments and sentences imposed after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer and he pleaded nolo contendere to possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana.1 We affirm without discussion the conviction for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, but we reverse the conviction for possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate this misdemean-or offense.
The State filed an information in circuit court that charged Mr. Hicks with one count of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, a second-degree felony, sections 784.021, .07(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2005), and possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana, a first-degree misdemeanor, section 893.13(6)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). The record reflects that the felony occurred on April 26, 2006, but the misdemeanor relates to marijuana found on Mr. Hicks when he was arrested on May 3, 2006. Nevertheless, the circuit court accepted Mr. Hicks’ nolo contendere plea to possession of marijuana and imposed a sentence for the misdemeanor after a jury had found Mr. Hicks guilty of the felony.
The circuit court’s jurisdiction over misdemeanors is limited to those misdemeanors arising out of the same circumstances as any felonies charged in the same charging document. Art. V, 20(c)(3), Fla. Const.; 26.012(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005). Mr. Hicks was charged with a misdemean-or that did not arise out of the same circumstances as the felony charged in the same information because the charges of possession of marijuana and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer were based on distinct offenses that occurred on different dates. See Izquierdo v. State, 890 So. 2d 1263, 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Although Mr. Hicks voluntarily pleaded to the misdemeanor, this fact is not disposi-tive because a defendant cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction on the circuit court by waiver or consent. Worley v. State, 396 So. 2d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Izquierdo, 890 So. 2d at 1266. Consequently, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the misdemeanor, White v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and Mr. Hicks’ conviction for possession of marijuana is void, see State v. Coble, 704 So. 2d 197, 199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Accordingly, we affirm Mr. Hicks’ judgment and sentence for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, but we reverse his judgment and sentence for possession of less than twenty grams of marijuana. On remand, the circuit court shall vacate the judgment and sentence for marijuana possession because it lacked jurisdiction over the misdemeanor offense. See White, 568 So. 2d at 1319.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
SILBERMAN, J., and CANADY, CHARLES T., Associate Judge, Concur. . Mr. Hicks’ appellate counsel originally filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because we determined that an issue of potential merit existed concerning the circuit court’s acceptance of Mr. Hicks plea for the misdemeanor offense, we ordered supplemental briefing in accordance with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ingraham v. State, 122 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…tences. Ingraham argues, the State concedes, and we agree that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the misdemeanors because the misdemeanors did not arise out of the same circumstances as the felony. See Hicks v. State, 990 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“The circuit court’s jurisdiction over misdemeanors is limited to those misdemeanors arising out of the same circumstances as any felonies charged in the same charging document.” (citing Art. V, § 20(c)(3), Fla. Const.; § 26…
-
Barlow v. State, 171 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…isdemeanors, including driving under the influence and driving while his license was suspended or revoked, did not arise out of the same circumstances as his felony charge for making false statements in obtaining a driver’s license); Hicks v. State, 990 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (stating that the charge of misdemeanor possession of marijuana, which was discovered when Hicks was arrested on a felony charge of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, did not arise from the same circumstances as the…
-
Lack v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…lence injunction, officers noticed that he was impaired and arrested him for driving under the influence. Appellant’s misdemeanor charge did not arise out of the same circumstances as the underlying 2018 domestic battery felony.* See Hicks v. State, 990 So. 2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that misdemeanor possession of marijuana charge that occurred while Appellant was being arrested for a prior felony did not arise out of the same circumstances). Furthermore, Appellant’s acquiescence to the circuit…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1988)
- Clem Gloster v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Worley v. State, 396 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- State v. Coble, 704 So. 2d 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Mamerto Izquierdo v. State, 890 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)