State v. M.R.T.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

State v. M.R.T.

848 So. 2d 467, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10132, 2003 WL 21512621

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 3, 2003

DocketNo. 5D03-1098

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 848 So. 2d 467 (State v. M.R.T.) 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. M.R.T., 848 So. 2d 467, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10132, 2003 WL 21512621 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state petitions for a writ of certiora-ri to review the trial court’s order terminating probation. We grant the petition and quash the order terminating probation, because the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the defendant’s sentence of probation during the pendency of an appeal.

M.R.T., a juvenile, was found guilty of battery, adjudicated delinquent, and placed on probation for one year. M.R.T. filed a timely notice of appeal on October 23, 2002. On March 6, 2003, while M.R.T.’s appeal was pending, the trial court granted M.R.T.’s motion to terminate probation.

The authority conferred upon the trial court to terminate probation is a matter of grace. § 948.05, Fla. Stat. (2002). Thus, the court’s decision is not appealable. Burgos v. State, 765 So.2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). See also, Thompson v. State, 840 So.2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). However, where the court is without jurisdiction to exercise that discretion, review by certiorari is appropriate. See, State v. Swett, 772 So.2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Rhodes, 554 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The filing of M.R.T.’s notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to terminate probation. Britt v. State, 687 So.2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dailey v. State, 575 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

We grant the writ, quash the order terminating probation, and remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the original sentence.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

SHARP, W„ PLEUS and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The state petitions for a writ of certiora-ri to review the trial court’s order terminating probation. We grant the petition and quash the order terminating probation, because the trial court was without jurisdiction to modify the defendant’s sentence of probation during the pendency of an appeal.

M.R.T., a juvenile, was found guilty of battery, adjudicated delinquent, and placed on probation for one year. M.R.T. filed a timely notice of appeal on October 23, 2002. On March 6, 2003, while M.R.T.’s appeal was pending, the trial court granted M.R.T.’s motion to terminate probation.

The authority conferred upon the trial court to terminate probation is a matter of grace. § 948.05, Fla. Stat. (2002). Thus, the court’s decision is not appealable. Burgos v. State, 765 So.2d 967 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). See also, Thompson v. State, 840 So.2d 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). However, where the court is without jurisdiction to exercise that discretion, review by certiorari is appropriate. See, State v. Swett, 772 So.2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); State v. Rhodes, 554 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The filing of M.R.T.’s notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to terminate probation. Britt v. State, 687 So.2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dailey v. State, 575 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991).

We grant the writ, quash the order terminating probation, and remand with instructions that the trial court reinstate the original sentence.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

SHARP, W„ PLEUS and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

848 So. 2d 467, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 10132, 2003 WL 21512621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mrt-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack