CHRISTOPHER LYNN KOPPE
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 has absolute discretion to determine an appropriate sentence following an open plea and probation revocation, and forfeiture of gain time is a collateral consequence requiring no specific advance warning.
[1] An open plea entered without a plea agreement vests the trial court with absolute discretion to determine the appropriate sentence.
[2] Forfeiture of gain time in connection with a prison sentence imposed upon revocation of probation is a collateral consequence that does not require advance warning to the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[F]orfeiture of gain time is a collateral consequence, and . . . neither the circuit court nor counsel was required to forewarn the defendant about that collateral consequence.”
Court's citation to Brown v. State for the proposition that gain time forfeiture requires no advance warning
Christopher Lynn Koppe appealed his sentencing in a probation revocation case (LT Case No. 2008-CF-043786-A) from the Circuit Court for Brevard County…
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 Probationary Split Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Tesha Scolaro Ballou, Judge.
Christopher Lynn Koppe, Avon Park, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee. PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Wagner v. State, 177 So. 3d 695, 697 (Fla. 5th DCA
2015) (recognizing that when a defendant enters an open plea, there is no plea agreement between the defendant and the State, and the trial court has the absolute discretion to determine the appropriate sentence); Jacoby v.
State, 215 So. 3d 168, 171–72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (recognizing that if a
DCA 2017))); State v. Rodriguez, 990 So. 2d 600, 606–07 (Fla. 3d DCA
2008) (“[T]here is no requirement that a defendant be given a specifically quantified amount of time that he is expected to serve in prison.”).
LAMBERT, C.J., MAKAR and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Rodriguez, 990 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Jacoby v. State, 215 So. 3d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)
- Wagner v. State, 177 So. 3d 695 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Ortiz v. State, 227 So. 3d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Brown v. State, 268 So. 3d 177 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)