DARRELL TODD MCCRAE
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 errs in adjudicating a defendant guilty twice for the same underlying offense, even in the context of probation revocation, and such duplicative adjudication must be struck.
[1] A trial court commits reversible error by entering duplicative adjudications of guilt for the same offense, even when revoking probation or community control, because suc…
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“[D]uplicative adjudications of guilt after revocation of probation or community control are superfluous, are unauthorized, and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings.”
Court's statement of law regarding the duplicative adjudication issue
McCrae had his probation revoked and received the minimum prison sentence. The trial court entered two separate adjudications of guilt for the same un…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
MAY, J.
The defendant appeals the revocation of his probation and consequent sentence. The defendant argues the trial court erred in revoking his probation and imposing the minimum prison sentence. He also argues the trial court erred in adjudicating him guilty a second time. We find no merit in the first argument and affirm without further comment. The State agrees the trial court erred in adjudicating the defendant a second time for the probation violation, and we agree. We reverse on the second issue.
“An appellate court reviews a trial court decision on violations of probation under an abuse of discretion standard.” Davis v. State, 48 So. 3d 176, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Ubiles v. State, 23 So. 3d 1288, 1291 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).
Because the defendant failed to object contemporaneously and raise fundamental error in his initial brief, the defendant’s sentencing error arguments are unpreserved on appeal. Regardless, they also lacked merit, as the trial court had discretion to sentence the defendant as it did.
2
However, “[d]uplicative adjudications of guilt after revocation of probation or community control are superfluous, are unauthorized, and can cause undue confusion in future proceedings.” Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147, 1148 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). In Butler, the Second District held the trial court erred in adjudicating the defendant a second time because the trial court had already adjudicated the defendant guilty of the underlying offense. Id. at 1149. The same result is dictated here. See Witham v. State, 311 So. 3d 34, 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[I]t appears that duplicate final judgments were entered. On remand, the [trial] court should also strike one of these judgments.”).
We reverse and remand the case to the trial court to strike the second adjudication of guilt. We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part. DAMOORGIAN and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kahli Ubiles v. State, 23 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Davis v. State, 48 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Witham v. State, 311 So. 3d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)