ROGER STUMP v. STATE OF FLORIDA

238 So. 3d 899
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 23, 2018
Docket17-2408
StatusPublished

This text of 238 So. 3d 899 (ROGER STUMP v. STATE OF FLORIDA) 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
ROGER STUMP v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 238 So. 3d 899 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

ROGER W. STUMP, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-2408 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________)

Opinion filed February 23, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Kelly P. Butz, Judge.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

SILBERMAN, Judge.

In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

Roger W. Stump appeals the order that revokes his sexual offender probation after an

evidentiary hearing and the resulting concurrent sentences for twenty-six counts of

possession of child pornography. We affirm in all respects except as to count one. Stump was placed on two years of sexual offender community control on

count one in 2011. When the affidavit of violation of probation was filed in 2016, he had

completed his community control on count one and was serving sexual offender

probation on other counts. Because he had already completed his sentence on count

one, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose a new sentence on that count.

See Deal v. State, 162 So. 3d 282, 282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (stating that "the trial court

lacked jurisdiction to impose new sentences on the counts for which Mr. Deal had

completed his probationary sentences"). Therefore, we reverse the sentence on count

one and direct the trial court to enter an order vacating the sentence and to modify the

revocation order to reflect this change. See id. In all other respects we affirm.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

-2-

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

Related

Anders v. California
386 U.S. 738 (Supreme Court, 1967)
Deal v. State
162 So. 3d 282 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
238 So. 3d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roger-stump-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2018.