Dicaprio v. State

352 So. 2d 78
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 10, 1977
Docket76-1576
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 352 So. 2d 78 (Dicaprio 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
Dicaprio v. State, 352 So. 2d 78 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

352 So.2d 78 (1977)

Alexander DICAPRIO, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1576.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 10, 1977.
Rehearing Denied August 3, 1977.

*79 John W. Tanner, P.A., Daytona Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Anthony C. Musto and Benedict Kuehne, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

Appellant appeals from an Order revoking his probation and sentencing him to the state penitentiary. However, the issue he raises on appeal relates to the original Order withholding adjudication of guilt and placing him on probation.

Appellant contends that the Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case initially and to enter the Order of probation. Since subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, acquiescence or waiver, and lack of such jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal, we now consider the issue of jurisdiction on this appeal. Solomon v. State, 341 So.2d 537 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Wilds v. Permenter, 228 So.2d 408 (Fla.4th DCA 1969).

Appellant was charged by information with possession and delivery of cannabis sativa L. The information contained no allegations of a prior conviction of Appellant of the Drug Abuse Law or that the amount of marijuana involved exceeded five grams. In the absence of such allegata, the offenses charged were only misdemeanors as a matter of law and the Circuit Court had no felony jurisdiction. Boley v. State, 273 So.2d 109 (Fla.4th DCA 1973). Therefore, the Circuit Court's Order placing Appellant on probation was void. Pope v. State, 268 So.2d 173 (Fla.2d DCA 1972); Boley v. State, supra.

All proceedings flowing from this void Order, specifically the Order revoking probation and sentencing Appellant, are a nullity and must be reversed. Ware v. State, 231 So.2d 872 (Fla.3d DCA 1970); Solomon v. State, supra.

REVERSED.

ALDERMAN and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Toiberman v. Tisera
998 So. 2d 4 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Peña v. State
913 So. 2d 1203 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Avatar Properties, Inc. v. NCJ Inv. Co.
848 So. 2d 1259 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1990
Anderson v. State
526 So. 2d 106 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Clem v. State
462 So. 2d 1134 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Phillips v. State
438 So. 2d 886 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Christopher v. State
397 So. 2d 406 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
City of West Palm Beach v. PALM BEACH CTY.
387 So. 2d 533 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1980)
Page v. State
376 So. 2d 901 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Davis v. State
371 So. 2d 721 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
Schueren v. State
370 So. 2d 83 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. Municipal Court of Phoenix
606 P.2d 33 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1979)
Waters v. State
354 So. 2d 1277 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
352 So. 2d 78, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dicaprio-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.