DONALD M. WOODS, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
HON. CARVEN D. ANGEL, CIRCUIT JUDGE, ETC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that prohibition is not the appropriate remedy because the trial court has jurisdiction to modify probation conditions and any erroneous ruling would be subject to appeal.
Donald M. Woods, Jr. was placed on probation and ordered to pay $3,000 in restitution. The State later sought to increase the restitution amount. Wood…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, Judge.
Petitioner, Donald M. Woods, Jr., seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent the Circuit Court from modifying and increasing the restitution required by a previously entered probation order. We deny the writ.
On September 1,1987, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Woods was placed on 3 years probation and ordered to pay restitution in the stipulated amount of $3,000. It was recognized at that time that the recommended restitution would not cover all the victims’ damages: if the victims wished compensation in excess of that agreed to and recommended by the State, they would have to seek it in a civil action. It is undisputed that Woods has not violated the terms of his probation.
The question is not whether the trial court would err by increasing the amount of restitution 1, but whether it has jurisdiction to hear the state’s motion. Clearly, Section 948.03(7) Fla.Stat. (1987) grants the court the authority to modify during the term of probation any condition “theretofore imposed”. Since the court has jurisdiction and any erroneous ruling would be subject to appeal, prohibition is not appropriate. See Pacha v. Salfi, 381 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
WRIT DENIED.
W. SHARP, J., concurs.
GOSHORN, J., dissents without opinion.
. The court may be estopped to modify the terms of an executed contract. The defendant seems to have changed his position in reliance on the contract by entering his plea and making partial payment. To say he can now withdraw from his agreement after serving several months on probation does not appear to be a proper solution to a "bad deal” agreed to by the State and accepted by the court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E.J. v. State, 595 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…been interpreted as limiting a juvenile’s maximum term of community control or community service to the maximum term for which an adult could have been sentenced for the same offense. R.D. v. State, 564 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); M.G. v. State, 556 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); J.S. v. State, 552 So. 2d 327, 328 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); R.H. v. State, 549 So. 2d 742, 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). The offense in the instant case was committed October 13, 1990. Section 39.-054, Florida Statutes (Supp.1990), effec…
-
D.V.S. v. State, 632 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…month term of community control is an appropriate sentence under section 39.053(2) and affirm. AFFIRMED. THOMPSON, J., concurs. W. SHARP, J., concurs specially with opinion. . A.R. v. State, 593 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) and M.G. v. State, 556 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), are distinguishable in that those courts were dealing with adjudicated children. However, E.J. v. State, 595 So. 2d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) appears to be in conflict. That court did not discuss the distinction between an adjudic…
-
Zepeda v. State, 658 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…ted both requests... The modification of an existing condition is valid. Section 948.03(5), Florida Statutes (1993), allows the trial court, during the term of probation, to modify any condition previously imposed by the court. See Woods v. Angel, 556 So. 2d 820, 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (during term of probation, trial court may subsequently modify those conditions of probation “theretofore imposed”). The trial court, therefore, did not err in changing the counseling condition from family counseling to indi…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pacha v. Honorable Dominick J. Salfi, 381 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)