STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
GLORIA NAZARIO, 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 appeals a trial court's order placing a defendant on immediate administrative probation following her no contest plea to grand theft with withheld adjudication. The court held that only the Department of Corrections, not the trial court, has authority to transfer a defendant to administrative probation, and immediate placement improperly bypasses statutory requirements.
The trial court lacks authority to immediately impose administrative probation. Only the Department of Corrections may transfer a defendant to administrative probation, and only after the offender satisfactorily completes half the term of probation. The error is not harmless because it circumvents statutory requirements and the Department's transfer procedures.
[1] Administrative probation is a form of noncontact supervision that may be granted by the Department of Corrections after an offender has satisfactorily completed half the…
[2] The Department of Corrections, not the trial court, is statutorily charged with transferring a defendant to administrative probation.
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“Probation is a creature of statute; thus, in imposing a probationary sentence, courts are limited to the authority given them by the relevant statutes.”
Establishes the foundational principle that courts have only those probation powers granted by statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGloria Nazario entered a no contest plea to grand theft, and the trial court withheld adjudication and sentenced her to eighteen months of administrat…
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 Statutory Authority For Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
The state appeals from the circuit court’s order placing the defendant on eighteen months of “administrative probation” immediately following her no contest plea to grand theft and the court’s withholding of adjudication. The state argues that the Department of Corrections, and not the court, is charged with transferring a defendant to administrative probation. We agree with the state and reverse.
“Probation is a creature of statute; thus, in imposing a probationary sentence, courts are limited to the authority given them by the relevant statutes.” State v. Coleman, 44 So.3d 1198, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Section 948.001(1), Florida Statutes (2011), defines “administrative probation” as “a form of noncontact supervision in which an offender who presents a low risk of harm to the community may, upon satisfactory completion of half the term, of probation, be transferred by the Department of Corrections to nonreporting status until expiration of the term of supervision.” (emphasis added). Section 948.013(1), Florida Statutes (2011), further provides, in pertinent part: “The Department of Corrections may establish procedures for transferring an offender to administrative probation.” (emphasis added). These statutes indicate that “[t]he Department of Corrections, not the trial court, is charged with transferring a defendant to administrative probation.” Coleman, 44 So.3d at 1200 n. 1 (internal quotations omitted); see also Madrigal v. State, 683 So.2d 1093, 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (the circuit court “had no authority to impose administrative probation from the beginning of the probationary period”).
The defendant concedes that the circuit court erred when it immediately sentenced her to administrative probation. However, the defendant argues that the error is harmless because the court had the discretion to sentence her to the same conditions as would be required for administrative probation. In support, the defendant cites section 948.03(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), which provides, in pertinent part:
(1) The court shall determine the terms and conditions of probation.... These conditions may include among them the following, that the probationer ... shall: (a) Report to the probation and parole supervisors as directed.
We disagree with the defendant. The circuit court’s order immediately placing the defendant on administrative probation effectively negated: (1) section 948.001(1)’s requirement that the offender satisfactorily complete half the term of probation before being considered for administrative probation; and (2) the Department of Corrections’ procedures for transferring an offender to administrative probation as established under section 948.013(1). Thus, the error is not harmless.
Based on the foregoing, we reverse and remand with instructions to resentence the defendant.
Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.
STEVENSON and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cadet v. State, 274 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…withdraw his original 2008 plea. We disagree. Administrative probation is non-reporting probation. By law, this is a type of probation that can only be imposed by the Department of Corrections. See § 948.001, Fla. Stat (2008); State v. Nazario, 100 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Cadet is, however, estopped from raising the issue because he initially accepted the terms of the plea, did not challenge the terms of the plea or appeal from the sentence, and he has since reaped the benefits of that plea. Thi…
-
State v. Akeem Thomas, 260 So. 3d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…the Department of Corrections can transfer a probationer to administrative probation and only upon the satisfactory completion of half the term of probation, we reverse and remand with instructions to resentence the defendant. State v. Nazario, 100 So. 3d 1246, 1247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Reversed and remanded for reinstatement of supervised probationary sentence for the balance of the probationary term remaining. GROSS and CIKLIN, JJ., concur. * * * 2 Not final unti…
Authorities Cited
- Aleño Santana Madrigal v. State, 683 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- State v. Coleman, 44 So. 3d 1198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)