Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

442 So. 2d 176

Docket No. 62350.

Cervantes v. State

Carlos CERVANTES, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided October 6, 1983.

Rehearing Denied January 16, 1984.

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1983-10-06

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1997

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[w]e refuse to involve ourselves with another esoteric discussion of whether an order of probation is a sentence.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 489 So. 2d 213 - State v. Malone

Relies on 396 So. 2d 1107 - Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Com'n · Dorfman v. State · 371 So. 2d 569 - Pearson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-10-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*177 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Robin H. Greene, Asst. Public Defender, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami, for petitioner.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for respondent.

¶3McDONALD, Justice.

¶4We accepted Cervantes v. State,415 So.2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), for review because of conflict with Pearson v. State,371 So.2d 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and quash Cervantes.

¶5Cervantes was tried without a jury and found guilty of two crimes. The court withheld adjudication of guilt. In a separate order, however, the court placed Cervantes on probation for fourteen months. That order did not describe which conviction, or whether both, constituted the predicate for the order.

¶6Relying on Dorfman v. State,351 So.2d 954 (Fla. 1977), Cervantes claimed the probation order was invalid as a general sentence for two offenses. In Dorfman we precluded the use of one sentence for an accumulation of separate adjudications of guilt. In the instant case, on the other hand, the Third District Court of Appeal held that it is not improper to have one probation order predicated on two findings of guilt because a probation order is not a sentence and, therefore, Dorfman does not apply. The Fourth District Court of Appeal in Pearson, however, held that a general order of probation predicated upon more than one conviction of criminal activity cannot stand and that there must be a separate order of probation for each offense.

¶7We refuse to involve ourselves with another esoteric discussion of whether an order of probation is a sentence. Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission,396 So.2d 1107 (Fla. 1980). We hold that the policy reasons requiring separate sentences, as described in Dorfman, apply to orders of probation. We therefore approve Pearson and quash the opinion of the district court on this issue in this cause.[*] The cause is remanded to the district court with directions to remand to the trial court for a corrected probation order.

¶8It is so ordered.

¶9ALDERMAN, C.J., and ADKINS, BOYD, OVERTON, EHRLICH and SHAW, JJ., concur.

NOTES

¶10[*] Not at issue and not disturbed is the affirmance of the denial to suppress.

/442/so2d/176 · .json · Public domain