D.L.S. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

D.L.S. v. State

912 So. 2d 680, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16461, 2005 WL 2649207

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 2005

DocketNo. 1D05-0533

StatusPublished

This text of 912 So. 2d 680 (D.L.S. 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

D.L.S. v. State, 912 So. 2d 680, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16461, 2005 WL 2649207 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the revocation of probation and commitment order for the offense of criminal mischief. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose any additional penalty for the crime of criminal mischief because the Appellant had served the maximum sentence for that offense before the affidavit of revocation of probation was filed. See B.C.M. v. State, 838 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); T.M.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved, 716 So.2d 269 (Fla.1998). The separate commitment order for the crime of grand theft of a firearm is not challenged on appeal.

For these reasons we reverse with instructions to vacate the commitment order for the crime of criminal mischief and affirm the commitment order for the crime of grand theft of a firearm.

BENTON, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the revocation of probation and commitment order for the offense of criminal mischief. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose any additional penalty for the crime of criminal mischief because the Appellant had served the maximum sentence for that offense before the affidavit of revocation of probation was filed. See B.C.M. v. State, 838 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); T.M.B. v. State, 689 So.2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), approved, 716 So.2d 269 (Fla.1998). The separate commitment order for the crime of grand theft of a firearm is not challenged on appeal.

For these reasons we reverse with instructions to vacate the commitment order for the crime of criminal mischief and affirm the commitment order for the crime of grand theft of a firearm.

BENTON, PADOVANO and BROWNING, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

912 So. 2d 680, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16461, 2005 WL 2649207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dls-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack