STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THEARTIS DANIELS, A/K/A THEARTIS DAVIS, APPELLEE
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 State appealed the dismissal of a cocaine possession charge against Daniels on double jeopardy grounds. The court reversed, holding that probation revocation does not constitute punishment for a new offense and therefore does not implicate double jeopardy protections.
The court held that double jeopardy does not apply because probation revocation is a deferred sentencing for a previously-committed offense and does not subject the defendant to conviction or punishment for a new offense. Therefore, the dismissal was reversed and the charge was to be reinstated.
[1] A probation revocation proceeding is a deferred sentencing for a previously-committed offense and does not implicate the double jeopardy prohibition.
[2] Double jeopardy does not bar prosecution of a new offense when a defendant's probation is revoked based on that offense, as probation revocation is not punishment for the…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A probation revocation is a deferred sentencing for a previously-committed offense.”
Establishes the legal characterization of probation revocation that distinguishes it from punishment for a new offense
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn August 1996, Daniels pleaded guilty in three cases and received community control followed by probation. In December 1998, he was charged with poss…
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 Deferred Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
The State disputes the dismissal of a charge against Theartis Daniels on the ground that its prosecution would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. We reverse.
In August 1996, Daniels pleaded guilty in three cases and was placed on community control, followed by probation. In December 1998, he was charged with a new offense, possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. The State filed an affidavit asserting that the new charge was a violation of Daniels’ probation in the earlier cases. The court held a probation revocation hearing at which it determined that Daniels had violated his probation and sentenced him to imprisonment. Daniels then moved to dismiss the new charge on the ground of double jeopardy, arguing that United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 118 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993), prohibited punishment on the new charge when his probation had already been revoked based solely on that charge. The court agreed and dismissed the new count. This was incorrect.
Dixon does not apply to these facts. In that case, a court found that Dixon had violated a bail release condition by possessing cocaine. The court adjudicated him guilty of criminal contempt and sentenced him to jail. Applying the Blockburger 1 analysis, the Supreme Court held that because Dixon’s drug possession offense did not include any element not included in his criminal contempt conviction, double jeopardy barred subsequent punishment for the cocaine possession charge. See Dixon, 509 U.S. at 699-700, 113 S.Ct. 2849. Here, however, Daniels was not convicted of or punished for any new offense based on his possession ' charge. Rather, the court simply revoked his probation.
A probation revocation is a deferred sentencing for a previously-committed offense. See Green v. State, 463 So. 2d 1139 (Fla.1985). Because the proceeding does not subject the defendant to conviction or punishment for his neio offense, the double jeopardy prohibition is not implicated. See Green; State v. Justice, 451 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We reverse the order dismissing the charge of possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, and remand for reinstatement of the charge and further proceedings.
PATTERSON, C.J., and STRINGER, J., concur. . Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932)
- Green v. State, 463 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 1985)
- State v. Justice, 451 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)