State v. Lovings

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. Lovings

1 So. 3d 1276, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1240, 2009 WL 368586

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 2009

DocketNo. 1D07-6385

StatusPublished

This text of 1 So. 3d 1276 (State v. Lovings) 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

State v. Lovings, 1 So. 3d 1276, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1240, 2009 WL 368586 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order by which the trial court withheld adjudication upon three offenses for which the appellee pled guilty. One of the offenses (possession of MDMA) is a third degree felony as indicated in section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Adjudication had previously been withheld upon another felony and the court was therefore precluded from withholding ad[1277]*1277judication here, unless requested by the prosecutor or unless the court made written findings as specified in section 775.08435(l)(c), Florida Statutes. The prosecutor did not request a withheld adjudication, and instead objected to that while pointing out to the court that the appellee had a prior withhold on another felony. The parties agree that the court should not have withheld adjudication for the present felony without making the necessary findings.

The appealed order is reversed as to the withheld adjudication for the MDMA offense, and the case is remanded. If the prosecutor does not request a withheld adjudication on remand, the court should either enter an adjudication of guilt or make the necessary findings under section 775.08435(l)(e).

BARFIELD, ALLEN, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state appeals an order by which the trial court withheld adjudication upon three offenses for which the appellee pled guilty. One of the offenses (possession of MDMA) is a third degree felony as indicated in section 893.13(6)(a), Florida Statutes. Adjudication had previously been withheld upon another felony and the court was therefore precluded from withholding ad[1277]*1277judication here, unless requested by the prosecutor or unless the court made written findings as specified in section 775.08435(l)(c), Florida Statutes. The prosecutor did not request a withheld adjudication, and instead objected to that while pointing out to the court that the appellee had a prior withhold on another felony. The parties agree that the court should not have withheld adjudication for the present felony without making the necessary findings.

The appealed order is reversed as to the withheld adjudication for the MDMA offense, and the case is remanded. If the prosecutor does not request a withheld adjudication on remand, the court should either enter an adjudication of guilt or make the necessary findings under section 775.08435(l)(e).

BARFIELD, ALLEN, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 So. 3d 1276, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1240, 2009 WL 368586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lovings-fladistctapp-2009.