BARBARA SMITH A/K/A BEVERLY DENISE SCANES A/K/A "SUNSHINE", APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Barbara Smith, who misrepresented her age as 22 when she was actually 16, challenged the revocation of her probation on grounds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over her as a juvenile. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation, holding that Smith was estopped from challenging the probation order because she intentionally misrepresented her identity and age to submit to adult court jurisdiction.
The trial court properly revoked Smith's probation and imposed an 18-month sentence. Smith is estopped from challenging the validity of the probation order on jurisdictional grounds because she intentionally misrepresented her age and identity to subject herself to adult court jurisdiction, accepted the benefits of probation, and failed to appeal the original probation order.
[1] A defendant who intentionally misrepresents their age to the court to be treated as an adult and obtain probation is estopped from later challenging the court's jurisdict…
[2] A challenge to the jurisdiction of a court to enter an order of probation must be raised on direct appeal from that order, not at a subsequent probation revocation hearin…
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“she voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the circuit court's adult division and pled guilty to a felony. When the trial court entered its order granting probation, which is an appealable order, the defendant did not take an appeal.”
Establishes that Smith knowingly and voluntarily submitted to adult court jurisdiction and failed to appeal, supporting estoppel.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBarbara Smith was arrested in November 1974 for possession of a controlled substance. She told police her name was Barbara Smith and that she was born…
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 Juvenile Court Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant, Barbara Smith, a/k/a Beverly Denise Scanes, a/k/a “Sunshine,” from an order revoking probation on a charge of possession of a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced Sunshine to eighteen (18) months in the state penitentiary.
The sole point raised by the defendant on this appeal is that the trial court erred in revoking probation and in imposing a sentence of incarceration where the defendant was a juvenile at the time of the offense for which she was initially placed on probation; therefore, the circuit court never acquired the requisite jurisdiction to treat her as an adult, in violation of Section 39.02, Florida Statutes (1975).
The record reflects that the defendant was arrested on November 13, 1974, and charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance. She told the police that her name was Barbara Smith and that she was born on October 21, 1953, making her age twenty-two. The defendant was represented by private counsel, and on April 7, 1975, by way of plea bargain, she pled guilty to one count of possession. The State dropped the second count, and the court entered an order of probation for a period of one year. Subsequently, an affidavit and an amended affidavit of violation of probation were filed.
On January 8, 1976, a probation revocation hearing was held. The defense moved to dismiss on the grounds that the defendant was only sixteen years of age at the time of the offense for which she was placed on probation; and that pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, no procedure was implemented through which the trial court could have obtained jurisdiction over her. The defense contended that since the trial court lacked jurisdiction, the probation was a nullity and any action taken pursuant to it, such as revocation, would be void.
The trial judge did not consider the defendant’s motion to dismiss, stating that the proper procedure to attack the probation would have been to appeal from the order of probation, and not to raise the validity of the probation at the revocation hearing. At the conclusion of the testimony, the court revoked the defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of eighteen months. It was brought out at the probation revocation hearing that the defendant’s real name is Beverly Scanes, and that she was born on November 21,1957, and was, therefore, only sixteen years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.
The record further discloses that the defendant testified at the probation revocation hearing that in the prior proceeding she lied under oath about her name, age and arrest record in order to avoid being sent to Youth Hall, and for the specific purpose of being placed on probation.
Thus, she voluntarily submitted herself to the jurisdiction of the circuit court’s adult division and pled guilty to a felony. When the trial court entered its order granting probation, which is an appealable order, the defendant did not take an appeal. She was represented by the same private counsel at the proceeding at which she was placed on probation, and at the revocation hearing; she misrepresented her name and age to the arresting authorities and to the court with the express purpose of subjecting herself to the jurisdiction of the adult court and obtaining probation. She accepted the benefits of probation and had one of the counts against her dropped as a part of the plea negotiations.
Under these circumstances, we find that Sunshine is estopped from changing her position and challenging the order of probation on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction to enter it. In our opinion, the trial court was correct in refusing to entertain the defendant’s challenge to the order of probation at the time of the revocation hearing. Therefore, the order of revocation of probation and sentence to eighteen months are hereby-affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Novaton v. State, 634 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 1994)…adrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Jacobs v. State, 522 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 531 So. 2d 1353 (Fla.1988); Preston v. State, 411 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 418 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1982); Smith v. State, 345 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 353 So. 2d 678 (Fla.1977)). In its final conclusion, the district court noted: “Having accepted its benefits by avoiding a life sentence without parole, Novaton cannot, any more than any other contracting party, be relie…
-
Domingo Antonio Madrigal v. State, 545 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…ant who should have been sentenced as a youthful offender but was placed on probation “waived his right to question the legality of a probation which he has enjoyed and violated.”), pet. for review denied, 418 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1982); Smith v. State, 345 So. 2d 1080, 1082 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (sixteen-year-old defendant estopped from challenging probation after violation when she had given a false age and was sentenced as an adult; “[s]he accepted the benefits of probation and had one of the counts against her dr…
-
Shearund Duron King v. State, 373 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…y the probation portion of his sentence was void and, therefore, that he was never lawfully on probation. We hold that the defendant has waived his right to question the legality of a probation, which he has enjoyed and violated. Cf. Smith v. State, 345 So. 2d 1080 (Fla 3d DCA 1977); and Stallings v. State, 319 S.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Affirmed. . “It has been held that such a sentence [an inadequate sentence] is not void.” 21 Am. Jur.2d Criminal Law § 538 (1965).…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence