From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sturges v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Feb 13, 2008
980 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

Summary

reversing "for resentencing without sexual offender probation" and providing that the trial court "may impose probation and special conditions of probation which reasonably relate to the underlying charges"

Summary of this case from M.S. v. State

Opinion

No. 4D07-463.

February 13, 2008.

Appeal from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit Court, Broward County, Michael L. Gates, J.

Fred Haddad of Fred Haddad, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Thomas A. Palmer, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.


In sentencing appellant for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, the trial court treated appellant as a youthful offender, imposing a sentence of 364 days in prison, anger management, and five years of sex offender probation pursuant to sections 948.30 and 948.31, Florida Statutes (2005). This was error, as aggravated assault is not one of the enumerated felonies for which those statutory provisions are imposed. See § 948.30(1), Fla. Stat.; Muzzo v. State, 773 So.2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).

We have addressed a similar issue of statutory interpretation in the context of drug related offenses. Both in Ellis v. State, 816 So.2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), and Epperson v. State, 955 So.2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), we held that a court may not impose drug offender probation pursuant to section 948.034 on conviction for crimes other than those listed in the drug offender probation statute. We interpret the sex offender probation statute in the same manner.

Appellant's sentence is reversed and remanded for resentencing without sexual offender probation. In resentencing, the court may impose probation and special conditions of probation which reasonably relate to the underlying charges. See Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734 (Fla. 1993).

FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sturges v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Feb 13, 2008
980 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

reversing "for resentencing without sexual offender probation" and providing that the trial court "may impose probation and special conditions of probation which reasonably relate to the underlying charges"

Summary of this case from M.S. v. State

rejecting imposition of all the conditions “ pursuant tosection 948.30”

Summary of this case from Villanueva v. State

In Sturges, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that application of “sex offender probation pursuant to sections 948.30 and 948.31, Florida Statutes (2005) ” was inappropriate because Sturges was not convicted of one of the enumerated felonies for which those statutory provisions are imposed.

Summary of this case from Villanueva v. State

In Sturges, the trial court imposed a sentence that included sex offender probation but did so on the mistaken belief that it was required to include sex offender probation for the crimes at issue.

Summary of this case from Levandoski v. State

In Sturges v. State, 980 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), our sister court determined that it is improper to impose sex offender conditions of probation unless the defendant is convicted of a crime specified in section 948.30.

Summary of this case from Arias v. State
Case details for

Sturges v. State

Case Details

Full title:Michael STURGES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Feb 13, 2008

Citations

980 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

Citing Cases

Villanueva v. State

Although that charge was not one enumerated in section 948.30, the trial court imposed—as special conditions…

Villanueva v. State

We acknowledge that our sister courts have held that all of the conditions listed in the sex offender…