ROGER STUMP
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose new sentences on probationary counts that the defendant has already completed.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to revoke probation and impose new sentences on counts for which a defendant has already completed his or her probationary sentence.
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 intelligenceStump was placed on two years of sexual offender community control on count one in 2011 and had completed that sentence by the time a probation violat…
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 Jurisdiction To Impose Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Roger W. Stump appeals the order that revokes his sexual offender probation after an evidentiary hearing and the resulting concurrent sentences for twenty-six counts of possession of child pornography. We affirm in all respects except as to count one.
Stump was placed on two years of sexual offender community control on count one in 2011. When the affidavit of violation of probation was filed in 2016, he had completed his community control on count one and was serving sexual offender probation on other counts. Because he had already completed his sentence on count one, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose a new sentence on that count.
See Deal v. State, 162 So. 3d 282, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (stating that "the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose new sentences on the counts for which Mr. Deal had completed his probationary sentences"). Therefore, we reverse the sentence on count one and direct the trial court to enter an order vacating the sentence and to modify the revocation order to reflect this change. See id. In all other respects we affirm.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Deal v. State, 162 So. 3d 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)