Bennett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bennett v. State

672 So. 2d 606, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4306, 1996 WL 194420

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 24, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2162

StatusPublished

This text of 672 So. 2d 606 (Bennett 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

Bennett v. State, 672 So. 2d 606, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4306, 1996 WL 194420 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Bennett appeals an order of the lower court finding him in violation of probation based on a conviction for battery. We reverse and remand.

At the violation of probation hearing, Bennett informed the lower court that he had filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea entered in the battery case. Bennett argued that because the motion had not been ruled upon, his battery conviction was “pending.” The lower court rejected this argument finding Bennett violated probation based on the conviction. One week after the notice of appeal was filed in this case, Bennett was permitted to withdraw his plea in the battery case.

Under these unique circumstances, it was error for the lower court to adjudicate Bennett guilty of violating probation based on the battery conviction while the motion to withdraw plea was pending. The lower court should have waited for the motion to be resolved before ruling. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new violation of probation hearing.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Bennett appeals an order of the lower court finding him in violation of probation based on a conviction for battery. We reverse and remand.

At the violation of probation hearing, Bennett informed the lower court that he had filed a motion to withdraw his no contest plea entered in the battery case. Bennett argued that because the motion had not been ruled upon, his battery conviction was “pending.” The lower court rejected this argument finding Bennett violated probation based on the conviction. One week after the notice of appeal was filed in this case, Bennett was permitted to withdraw his plea in the battery case.

Under these unique circumstances, it was error for the lower court to adjudicate Bennett guilty of violating probation based on the battery conviction while the motion to withdraw plea was pending. The lower court should have waited for the motion to be resolved before ruling. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new violation of probation hearing.

BOOTH, JOANOS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 So. 2d 606, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 4306, 1996 WL 194420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.