DIAUNDRA JONES
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.
An appeal of a completed jail sentence becomes moot when the appellant has fully served that sentence and cannot articulate collateral legal consequences that would justify continuing the appeal.
[1] An appeal challenging the legality of a jail sentence becomes moot when the appellant completes the sentence during the pendency of the appeal and fails to demonstrate co…
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 intelligence“Where one is challenging the legality of his sentence or seeking jail credit against that sentence, and he completes the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal may be dismissed as moot.”
Court cited Toomer v. State to establish the mootness doctrine for completed sentences.
Diaundra Jones was sentenced to eight months in jail for grand theft. She appealed only her sentence, not her conviction.…
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 Collateral Legal Consequences cases and more on FLexlaw
April 17, 2018 PER CURIAM.
Diaundra Jones appeals her sentence for grand theft, arguing only that the trial court considered improper factors when imposing an eight-month jail sentence. But because she has not challenged her conviction—only her sentence—and because she has already served that sentence, this appeal has become moot. See Toomer v. State, 895 So. 2d 1256, 1256-57 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“Where one is challenging the legality of his sentence or seeking jail credit against that sentence, and he completes the sentence during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal may be dismissed as moot.”). Although Jones asserts the appeal “is not moot because a possibility exists that adverse collateral legal consequences will befall Ms. Jones,” she has not articulated what those adverse collateral consequences might be, and we can conceive of none.
2
DISMISSED.
WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Johnson v. State, 260 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Toomer v. State, 895 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)