Mister D. Paige v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mister D. Paige v. State

196 So. 3d 574, 2016 WL 4069645

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 29, 2016·No. 5D15-3354·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Mister Paige appeals his sentence arguing that, since he was not charged with a drug offense and no evidence was presented that he was a chronic substance abuser, he did not qualify to receive drug offender probation. See § 948.20 Fla. Stat. (2014); Green v. State, 178 So.3d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). The State properly concedes error. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to strike the drug offender probation order and enter a standard probation order.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Mister Paige appeals his sentence arguing that, since he was not charged with a drug offense and no evidence was presented that he was a chronic substance abuser, he did not qualify to receive drug offender probation. See § 948.20 Fla. Stat. (2014); Green v. State, 178 So.3d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). The State properly concedes error. Accordingly, we remand this matter to the trial court to strike the drug offender probation order and enter a standard probation order.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.

SAWAYA, PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Mister D. Paige v. State, 196 So. 3d 574, 2016 WL 4069645 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

196 So. 3d 574 (Mister D. Paige v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related