Koper v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Koper v. State

987 So. 2d 817, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12121, 2008 WL 3358145

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 13, 2008

DocketNo. 4D07-1235

StatusPublished

This text of 987 So. 2d 817 (Koper 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

Koper v. State, 987 So. 2d 817, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12121, 2008 WL 3358145 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Theodore Edward Koper, III, timely appeals an order revoking his probation, imposed after Koper entered a negotiated plea to a charge of driving with a suspended license and causing death or great bodi[818]*818ly harm, and sentencing him to 94.65 months (nearly 8 years) incarceration. While Koper raises a number of points on appeal, we find his claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the final VOP hearing to be dispositive and to compel reversal and remand. See McKay v. State, 504 So.2d 1280, 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (setting forth factors to be considered by judge in ruling on motion for continuance to allow recently-retained counsel time to prepare); see also J.S. v. State, 796 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (recognizing that trial court’s ruling on motion for continuance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). Our holding makes it unnecessary to address Koper’s other claims on appeal.

Reversed and Remanded.

STEVENSON, MAY, JJ„ and LABARGA, JORGE, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Theodore Edward Koper, III, timely appeals an order revoking his probation, imposed after Koper entered a negotiated plea to a charge of driving with a suspended license and causing death or great bodi[818]*818ly harm, and sentencing him to 94.65 months (nearly 8 years) incarceration. While Koper raises a number of points on appeal, we find his claim that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue the final VOP hearing to be dispositive and to compel reversal and remand. See McKay v. State, 504 So.2d 1280, 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (setting forth factors to be considered by judge in ruling on motion for continuance to allow recently-retained counsel time to prepare); see also J.S. v. State, 796 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (recognizing that trial court’s ruling on motion for continuance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). Our holding makes it unnecessary to address Koper’s other claims on appeal.

Reversed and Remanded.

STEVENSON, MAY, JJ„ and LABARGA, JORGE, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

987 So. 2d 817, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 12121, 2008 WL 3358145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koper-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack