B.C.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

B.C.M. v. State

838 So. 2d 664, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2472, 2003 WL 717458

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 4, 2003

DocketNo. 1D02-2725

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 838 So. 2d 664 (B.C.M. 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

B.C.M. v. State, 838 So. 2d 664, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2472, 2003 WL 717458 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

B.C.M. appeals an order revoking probation, adjudicating him delinquent and imposing high-risk commitment and probation for the offense of first-degree misdemeanor petit theft. B.C.M. contends that because he had already served one year of commitment, which is equivalent to the maximum sentence for petit theft, his probationary term had expired; therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over such offense, and the state agrees, conceding error. See § 985.231(l)(a)(l)(a) & (l)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999); N.P.L. v. State, 819 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); T.M.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved on other grounds, 716 So.2d 269 (Fla.1998).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.

ERVIN, WOLF and Van NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

B.C.M. appeals an order revoking probation, adjudicating him delinquent and imposing high-risk commitment and probation for the offense of first-degree misdemeanor petit theft. B.C.M. contends that because he had already served one year of commitment, which is equivalent to the maximum sentence for petit theft, his probationary term had expired; therefore, the trial court did not have jurisdiction over such offense, and the state agrees, conceding error. See § 985.231(l)(a)(l)(a) & (l)(d), Fla. Stat. (1999); N.P.L. v. State, 819 So.2d 254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); T.M.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved on other grounds, 716 So.2d 269 (Fla.1998).

REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.

ERVIN, WOLF and Van NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

838 So. 2d 664, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 2472, 2003 WL 717458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bcm-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack