JEREMY RUSSELL INGRAHAM, 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 circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the misdemeanor offenses because they did not arise out of the same circumstances as the felony offense.
The defendant was convicted of a felony offense committed between 2006 and 2008 and misdemeanor offenses occurring during a 2011 traffic stop. The def…
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 Subject Matter Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Jeremy Ingraham appeals his convictions and sentences of probation for the felony offense of making a false statement in obtaining a driver’s license and the misdemeanor offenses of obstructing or opposing an officer without violence, driving under the influence, and driving while license suspended or revoked. We affirm the felony conviction and sentence without comment, but we reverse the misdemeanor convictions and sentences.
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.; § 26.012(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (2005))). The felony was committed between 2006 and 2008, while the misdemeanors occurred during a traffic stop in 2011. And the fact that Ingraham acquiesced to the circuit court’s jurisdiction is irrelevant as subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement or failure to object. See Hicks, 990 So.2d at 685; State v. Yaros, 728 So.2d 1201, 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); White v. State, 568 So.2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Accordingly, the misdemeanor convictions and sentences are void, and we reverse the misdemeanor convictions and sentences and remand for further proceedings in the correct court. See White, 568 So.2d at 1319 (“The practical benefit to [appellant] of this decision is debatable, particularly since the state is free to pursue the charges at the correct level of the court system and thereby summon [appellant] back for at least one more appearance.”).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Barlow v. State, 171 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…note that some cases consider the temporal relationship between the felonies and the misdemeanors, but we do not find that factor, in itself, dispositive. Rather we must examine the circumstances from which the charges arose. See Ingraham v. State, 122 So. 3d 934 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (noting that years elapsed between the commission of the felony and the misdemeanors, but relying on the fact that the defendant’s misdemeanors, including driving under the influence and driving while his license was suspended or…
-
Watson v. State, 213 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…vided the court with jurisdiction to resentence appellant, but in a criminal case such as this one, jurisdiction cannot be created by an agreement of the parties. Snider v. Snider, 686 So. 2d 802, 804 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); see also Ingraham v. State, 122 So. 3d 934, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Moreover, neither such jurisdiction, nor the ability to protest its absence, can be waived. See Alvarez v. City of Plantation, 824 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Waggy v. State, 935 So. 2d 571, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…
-
Lack v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…e exercise of the power of the court.”). Because the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over Appellant’s misdemeanor DUI charge, this Court must reverse and remand the conviction for further proceedings in the correct court. Ingraham v. State, 122 So. 3d 934, 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); White v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). REVERSE and REMAND. * This outcome does not change where the misdemeanor charge was used to support Appellant’s violation of probation from the 2018 felony because…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clem Gloster v. State, 568 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- State v. Yaros, 728 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Hicks v. State, 990 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)