JAMES LEON CARPENTER, 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.
Carpenter appeals the revocation of his probation and four-year sentence, arguing the trial court lost jurisdiction to revoke his probation after finding him not guilty of the original violations. The appellate court agrees, holding that once a trial court acquits a probationer of alleged violations at the end of the probationary period, it becomes divested of jurisdiction and cannot entertain amended violation affidavits.
No. Once a trial court finds a probationer not guilty of alleged violations at the end of the probationary period, the court becomes divested of jurisdiction and lacks authority to entertain an amended violation affidavit alleging new violations. The trial court erred in entertaining the amended April 7 affidavit after the March 29 acquittal.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding for revocation of probation after the probationary period has expired, unless the processes for revocation have…
[2] A finding of not guilty on an affidavit of probation violation, after the probationary period has expired, divests the court of jurisdiction to entertain an amended affid…
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“It is undisputed that after the end of a specified period of probation, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding or application for revocation of probation for a violation which occurred during the term of probation unless in the meantime, the processes of the court have been set in motion for revocation or modification of the probation pursuant to Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1975).”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle that trial courts lose jurisdiction over probation revocation matters once the probationary period expires unless court processes were initiated during the term of probation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarpenter was placed on six-month probation after pleading nolo contendere to possession of a controlled substance with adjudication withheld. On Febr…
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 Affidavit Of Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
James Leon Carpenter appeals an order revoking his probation and vacating his sentence of four years in the state penitentiary on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction. We find this appeal has merit.
Defendant Carpenter was informed against for possession of a controlled substance and upon changing his plea from not guilty to nolo contendere, the court entered an order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing Carpenter on six months probation. On February 22, 1977, the last day of Carpenter’s probationary period, his probation officer filed an affidavit of violation of probation. A revocation hearing was held on March 29 and the trial judge found Carpenter not guilty of the violations charged in the affidavit. However, the judge directed that the probation officer file an amended affidavit alleging additional violations. An amended affidavit was sworn to on April 7 and an evidentiary hearing thereon was conducted on April 12. Based upon the amended affidavit and the evidence presented, the judge entered an order revoking Carpenter’s probation and sentencing him to four years imprisonment. Carpenter moved to vacate the above order for the reason that the court erred in entertaining the amended affidavit inasmuch as the court became divested of jurisdiction when it found him not guilty after the March 29 hearing on the original affidavit of violation of probation. The court denied the motion and this appeal ensued.
It is undisputed that after the end of a specified period of probation, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding or application for revocation of probation for a violation which occurred during the term of probation unless in the meantime, the processes of the court have been set in motion for revocation or modification of the probation pursuant to Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1975). Carroll v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 300 (Fla.1962); State ex rel. Ard v. Shelby, 97 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957); Brooker v. State, 207 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Maycock v. State, 281 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).
Reviewing the record in light of the above established principle of law, the trial court clearly had jurisdiction to entertain the original February 221 violation of probation affidavit. However, upon the finding by the trial court at the conclusion of the March 29 hearing that Carpenter was not guilty of violating the conditions of his probation as alleged in the original affidavit, the court lost jurisdiction as Carpenter’s probationary period had expired and it was error for the court to entertain the amended affidavit of April 7 alleging new violations. See State ex rel. Ard v. Shelby, supra.
We also are compelled to reject the contention of the State that Carpenter waived the jurisdictional defect by participating in the April 12 hearing on the amended affidavit because, upon the termination of the March 29 hearing in favor of Carpenter, the trial court became divested of jurisdiction and was powerless to entertain the amended April 7 affidavit. See Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1977) and Coleman v. State, 205 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
Accordingly, the order revoking probation and sentencing Carpenter to four years is reversed.
Reversed.
. The last day of Carpenter’s probationary period.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Clark v. State, 402 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…n of probation based upon a violation which occurred during the probation period unless, during the term of probation, appropriate steps were taken to revoke or modify probation. Bouie v. State, 360 So. 2d 1142 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Carpenter v. State, 355 So. 2d 492 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); State ex rel. Ard v. Shelby, 97 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1st DCA 1957). See Sections 948.06(1), 948.04(2), Florida Statutes (1979). In the case at bar the state urges that the above rule should not preclude consideration of the new or ame…
-
Bennie Jess, Jr. v. State, 384 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…Contrary to the appellant’s contention, we regard as irrelevant the fact that the identical allegation was also contained in an affidavit which was untimely filed on September 18, 1978, and which included the burglary charge. Cf. Carpenter v. State, 355 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The defendant’s reliance upon the trial court’s statement at the revocation hearing that it was proceeding under the latter affidavit is misplaced. Obviously, that comment did not affect the court’s jurisdiction to revoke probati…
-
Gardner v. State, 412 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…rt is divested of all jurisdiction over the probationer unless prior to that time the processes of the court have been set in motion for revocation or modification of probation. Bouie v. State, 360 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Carpenter v. State, 355 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hopson v. State, 339 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Ard v. Shelby, 97 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). Here the state’s affidavit alleging appellant had violated his probation was not filed until one day after his term of probati…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. Fritz ARD v. Emmett Shelby, 97 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Carroll v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1962)
- Bell v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1962)
- Kaufman v. Kurzweil, 207 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Brooker v. State, 207 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
- Maycock v. State, 281 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Massey v. Massey, 205 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Coleman v. State, 205 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)