Hopps v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hopps v. State

158 So. 3d 698, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1599, 2015 WL 493182

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 2015

Docket2D13-5967

StatusPublished

This text of 158 So. 3d 698 (Hopps 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

Hopps v. State, 158 So. 3d 698, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1599, 2015 WL 493182 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Dominique Shantel Hopps appeals her judgments and sentences imposed for one count of delivery of cannabis and one count of possession of cannabis (less than twenty grams) following a jury trial. Ms. Hopps was sentenced to time served on the possession charge and three years’ prison followed by two years’ drug offender probation on the delivery charge, with a special condition of probation calling for no early termination of probation. We affirm the judgments and sentences without discussion except as to the condition of no early termination of probation.

The trial court erred by imposing “a special condition of probation that purports to divest the Department of Corrections (DOC) of its authority to recommend early termination.” Murphy v. State, 976 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also Baker v. State, 619 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“[A] trial judge is not authorized to divest the Department of Corrections of its authority to recommend early termination of probation.”). Ms. Hopps raised this issue in a motion to correct sentencing error, which was timely filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The State properly concedes error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike this special condition of probation and to correct the sentence and probation order so that the DOC is aware that the special condition no longer exists. We affirm in all other respects.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for correction of sentence and probation order.

KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

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

CASANUEVA, Judge.

Dominique Shantel Hopps appeals her judgments and sentences imposed for one count of delivery of cannabis and one count of possession of cannabis (less than twenty grams) following a jury trial. Ms. Hopps was sentenced to time served on the possession charge and three years’ prison followed by two years’ drug offender probation on the delivery charge, with a special condition of probation calling for no early termination of probation. We affirm the judgments and sentences without discussion except as to the condition of no early termination of probation.

The trial court erred by imposing “a special condition of probation that purports to divest the Department of Corrections (DOC) of its authority to recommend early termination.” Murphy v. State, 976 So.2d 1242, 1243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); see also Baker v. State, 619 So.2d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“[A] trial judge is not authorized to divest the Department of Corrections of its authority to recommend early termination of probation.”). Ms. Hopps raised this issue in a motion to correct sentencing error, which was timely filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). The State properly concedes error. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike this special condition of probation and to correct the sentence and probation order so that the DOC is aware that the special condition no longer exists. We affirm in all other respects.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded for correction of sentence and probation order.

KELLY and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 So. 3d 698, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1599, 2015 WL 493182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hopps-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack