Gibbs v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gibbs v. State

725 So. 2d 413, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 159, 1999 WL 10249

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 13, 1999

DocketNo. 98-04044

StatusPublished

This text of 725 So. 2d 413 (Gibbs 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

Gibbs v. State, 725 So. 2d 413, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 159, 1999 WL 10249 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Powell Thomas Gibbs’ initial motion for postconviction relief without discussion. In his motion for rehearing from the denial of that motion in the trial court, Gibbs argued and the record reflects that, during the course of the proceedings leading to his present incarceration, a consecutive term of supervision which had not yet commenced was improperly revoked. The trial court interpreted this claim as one advancing a guidelines scoresheet error, which may oversimplify the allegation.

On June 6, 1995, Gibbs’ two years of community control on count five of case number 94-11924 was revoked, as was his consecutive five years’ probation on count one in that case. The seven years of supervision was then, upon revocation, effectively converted to five years’ supervision, about which Gibbs did not complain on appeal. As such, he accepted the benefit of this small windfall and will not be heard now to complain of this procedural shortcoming. See Lee v. State, 666 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of Powell Thomas Gibbs’ initial motion for postconviction relief without discussion. In his motion for rehearing from the denial of that motion in the trial court, Gibbs argued and the record reflects that, during the course of the proceedings leading to his present incarceration, a consecutive term of supervision which had not yet commenced was improperly revoked. The trial court interpreted this claim as one advancing a guidelines scoresheet error, which may oversimplify the allegation.

On June 6, 1995, Gibbs’ two years of community control on count five of case number 94-11924 was revoked, as was his consecutive five years’ probation on count one in that case. The seven years of supervision was then, upon revocation, effectively converted to five years’ supervision, about which Gibbs did not complain on appeal. As such, he accepted the benefit of this small windfall and will not be heard now to complain of this procedural shortcoming. See Lee v. State, 666 So.2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Affirmed.

THREADGILL, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

725 So. 2d 413, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 159, 1999 WL 10249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gibbs-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack