STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
TYLER GOOD, 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 State appealed a trial court's order withholding adjudication on two third-degree drug felonies after the defendant entered a no-contest plea. The Fourth District affirmed, holding that section 775.08435(1)(c) prohibits withholding adjudication only when the defendant has a prior withholding of adjudication for a felony, and the State failed to present evidence of such a prior withholding.
The trial court did not err in withholding adjudication. Section 775.08435(1)(c) prohibits withholding adjudication only when a defendant has a prior withholding of adjudication for a felony, not merely prior felony convictions. The State failed to present evidence of a prior withholding of adjudication, so the statute did not apply.
[1] A court may not withhold adjudication of guilt for a third-degree felony offense if the defendant has a prior withholding of adjudication for a felony offense that did no…
[2] The State bears the burden of proving that a defendant has a prior withholding of adjudication for a felony offense to prohibit withholding adjudication for a current fel…
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“Section 775.08435(l)(e) prohibits a court from withholding adjudication of guilt upon a defendant for "[a] third degree felony offense if the defendant has a prior withholding of adjudication for a felony offense that did not arise from the same transaction as the current felony offense."”
States the correct statutory standard—prior withholds, not prior convictions, are what prevent withholding adjudication.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant entered a no-contest plea to two third-degree felonies (possession of oxycodone and alprazolam) and one misdemeanor (possession of canna…
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 Withholding Adjudication Of Guilt cases and more on FLexlaw
The State appeals the trial court’s order withholding adjudication following the defendant’s no contest plea to two third degree felonies (possession of oxycodone and possession of alprazolam) and one misdemeanor (possession of cannabis). Both before the trial judge and now on appeal, the State argues that the trial court erred in withholding adjudication on the two third degree drug felony charges as being in violation of section 775.08435(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2008). Because the State is simply not honing in on the wording of the applicable statute, we must disagree and affirm.
At the plea hearing, the State recommended that the defendant be adjudicated and objected to a withhold pursuant to section 775.08435(l)(c), because, the State urged, the defendant had “several prior felony convictions.”
But this is not what section 775.08435(l)(c) provides. Section 775.08435(l)(e) prohibits a court from withholding adjudication of guilt upon a defendant for “[a] third degree felony offense if the defendant has a prior withholding of adjudication for a felony offense that did not arise from the same transaction as the current felony offense.”
The State did not argue or present any evidence that the defendant had prior withholds of adjudication. The statute plainly reads that a court may not withhold adjudication of guilty upon a defendant for a third degree felony offense if the defendant has a “prior withholding of adjudication for a felony offense.” A similar situation occurred in State v. Barfield, 995 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In Barfield, the State appealed the trial court’s decision to withhold adjudication for three third degree felony charges, arguing that the trial court could not withhold adjudication when the defendant had adjudication withheld on a prior felony charge in Texas. Id. at 1138-39. In affirming, the Fifth District found:
[T]he State still has the burden of proving that a defendant was previously charged with a felony for which adjudication was withheld. In this case, the trial court withheld adjudication for the Florida felony charges because “[tjhere’s no indication in writing whether or not it’s a felony or a misdemean- or” — the State failed to produce evidence of a prior felony withholding.
Id. at 1139. (alteration in original). Simply put, the State failed to provide sufficient *662evidence for section 775.08435(l)(c) to be applied.
Affirmed.
GROSS, C.J., and MAY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Braine v. State, 255 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…a. - 3 - Analysis The State introduced sufficient evidence of Mr. Braine's two prior withholds. Thus, this is not a case where the State failed to prove that the defendant was ineligible for a withhold of adjudication. See, e.g., State v. Good, 30 So. 3d 661, 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) ("The State did not argue or present any evidence that the defendant had prior withholds of adjudication." (emphasis added)); State v. Barfield, 995 So. 2d 1138, 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (affirming withhold of adjudicatio…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Leeroy Wayne Barfield, 995 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)