Bach v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bach v. State

953 So. 2d 22, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3339, 2007 WL 674727

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2007

DocketNo. 4D06-3851

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 953 So. 2d 22 (Bach v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bach v. State, 953 So. 2d 22, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3339, 2007 WL 674727 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. He claims newly discovered evidence that his plea agreement to violation of probation was breached when the court later found him to be a sexual predator, several years after his sentencing for violation of probation. His original plea agreement, which resulted in probation, provided for designation as a sexual offender. However, when he violated the terms of his probation, the trial court was free to impose any sentence which it could have lawfully imposed before placing him on probation. See Aponte v. State, 810 So.2d 1008, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“The events which bring about a revocation open a new chapter in which the court ought to be able to mete out any punishment within the limits prescribed for the crime.”). Appellant’s original crimes occurred prior to October 1, 1995, and section 775.21, et. seq., Florida Statutes (1993), required his designation as a sexual predator based on his qualifying convictions, without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. See § 775.23, Fla. Stat. (1993). Therefore, we agree with the trial court that he has not alleged any legally sufficient ground for relief.

In a motion for rehearing in the trial court, he also raises a claim of affirmative misadvice. This claim cannot be entertained for the first time on rehearing. Even if we thought that he could state such a claim, it would be barred as successive if it were treated as a new motion. See Reid v. State, 745 So.2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

STEVENSON, C.J., STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for postconviction relief. He claims newly discovered evidence that his plea agreement to violation of probation was breached when the court later found him to be a sexual predator, several years after his sentencing for violation of probation. His original plea agreement, which resulted in probation, provided for designation as a sexual offender. However, when he violated the terms of his probation, the trial court was free to impose any sentence which it could have lawfully imposed before placing him on probation. See Aponte v. State, 810 So.2d 1008, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“The events which bring about a revocation open a new chapter in which the court ought to be able to mete out any punishment within the limits prescribed for the crime.”). Appellant’s original crimes occurred prior to October 1, 1995, and section 775.21, et. seq., Florida Statutes (1993), required his designation as a sexual predator based on his qualifying convictions, without the necessity of an evidentiary hearing. See § 775.23, Fla. Stat. (1993). Therefore, we agree with the trial court that he has not alleged any legally sufficient ground for relief.

In a motion for rehearing in the trial court, he also raises a claim of affirmative misadvice. This claim cannot be entertained for the first time on rehearing. Even if we thought that he could state such a claim, it would be barred as successive if it were treated as a new motion. See Reid v. State, 745 So.2d 363 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

STEVENSON, C.J., STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

953 So. 2d 22, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3339, 2007 WL 674727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bach-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack