STATE OF FLORIDA
v.
HANBERRY

Fla. 5th DCA | 2024-07-26
No. 2023-3322
Soud, J., Boatwright, J., Kilbane, J., Davis, J.
2024 FL 9063 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2024)

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.


Holding

A trial court lacks legal authority to withhold adjudication of guilt for a violation of section 316.1935 (fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement) because the statute expressly prohibits such withholding.


Headnotes

[1] Section 316.1935(6), Florida Statutes, expressly prohibits trial courts from suspending, deferring, or withholding adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence for any…

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

Key Quotes

“Notwithstanding s. 948.01, no court may suspend, defer, or withhold adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence for any violation of this section.”

Section 316.1935(6), Florida Statutes, setting forth the mandatory requirement that adjudication cannot be withheld for fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement.

Facts & Procedural History

Hanberry was charged with fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement, a third-degree felony under section 316.1935(2). He entered an open plea to …

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.


Opinion of the Court
Kilbane

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2023-3322 LT Case No. 2023-CF-001538-A _____________________________ STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. KA’MARI SHANE HANBERRY, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County. Heidi Davis, Judge. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tabitha Mills, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joseph Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. July 26, 2024

SOUD, J.

The State of Florida appeals the trial court’s withholding adjudication of guilt for Appellee Ka’Mari Hanberry’s crime of fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(c)(1)(L).

2 Hanberry was charged with fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement, a third-degree felony violative of section 316.1935(2), Florida Statutes (2023). Hanberry ultimately entered an open plea to the court on this charge. The trial court, over the State’s objection, withheld adjudication of guilt and placed Hanberry on probation.* This appeal followed. The State, as it did below, argues that withholding adjudication of guilt on the fleeing charge brought under section 316.1935 constitutes an illegal sentence because withholding adjudication is expressly prohibited by that statute. Hanberry’s appellate counsel, as an officer of the court, commendably—and rightly—concedes the trial court erred in withholding adjudication. Section 316.1935 sets forth the crime of fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement officers, as well as the circumstances in which a charged defendant is exposed to an aggravated sentence therefor. See § 316.1935(1)–(4), Fla. Stat. Pertinent here, section 316.1935(6), provides in part, “Notwithstanding s. 948.01, no court may suspend, defer, or withhold adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence for any violation of this section.” § 316.1935(6), Fla. Stat. Thus, as the statute plainly requires, Florida trial courts are without legal prerogative to withhold adjudication of guilt when a defendant pleas to or is found guilty of fleeing or attempting to elude law enforcement under section 316.1935. See State v. Teague, 275 So. 3d 828, 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019); see also State v. Culver, 63 So. 3d 891 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)). Accordingly, we REVERSE the judgment and sentence entered below and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. * The State did not oppose a probationary sentence, though the State’s recommended probationary sentence varied somewhat from that imposed by the trial court.

Footnotes
3 BOATWRIGHT and KILBANE, 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

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw