LEE NELSON, 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.
The court reversed the defendant's sentence because the trial court erroneously denied his motion for alternative sentencing under Florida Statutes section 948.20 based on an incorrect belief that prior non-felony drug convictions rendered him ineligible, when in fact such prior convictions do not bar eligibility.
A defendant with prior non-felony drug convictions is eligible for alternative sentencing under Florida Statutes section 948.20, and a trial court errs in denying such a motion solely on the ground of ineligibility based on such prior convictions.
[1] A defendant with prior non-felony drug convictions is eligible for alternative sentencing under Florida Statutes section 948.20.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNelson was charged with possession of cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia, pled no contest, and was sentenced to 37.2 months in prison after …
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 Eligibility Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was charged with one count of possession of cocaine and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia, and pled no contest to the charges. The circuit court accepted the plea, denied appellant’s motion for alternative sentencing under Florida Statutes section 948.20 (drug offender probation) and sentenced appellant to 37.2 months in prison. The State concedes, and we agree, that the circuit court erred in failing to consider the motion for alternative sentencing for the circuit court’s stated reason that appellant was “not eligible” for alternative sentencing under section 948.20 since he had prior non-felony drug convictions. In Nelson v. State, 16 So.3d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (Nelson I), another case involving this same defendant, this court recently clarified that a defendant with prior non-felony convictions is eligible for alternative sentencing under section 948.20. Id.
As in Nelson I, we reverse the sentence and remand so that the circuit court may reconsider appellant’s motion for alternative sentencing under the plain language of section 948.20. We emphasize that the circuit court retains the discretion to decide the merits of appellant’s motion under the statute’s provisions and nothing in this opinion should suggest an outcome thereof.
Reversed and remanded.
GROSS, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eric v. Ross, 29 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…or, non-drug felony convictions do not bar the imposition of a drug offender probation sentence under section 948.20. See Nelson v. State, 16 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); see also State v. Cox, 19 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Nelson v. State, 17 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). We thus reverse the trial court’s denial of Ross’s motion for imposition of an alternative sentence pursuant to section 948.20 and remand the case so that the trial court may reconsider the matter. Reversed and Remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Nelson v. State, 16 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)