Early Termination of Probation or Community Control

This article summarizes the law of sentencing pertaining to early termination of probation  or community control in Florida state courts.

Hon. William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

July 10, 2024

Early termination of supervision is a tool used to encourage good behavior and faithful compliance with the terms of probation or community control.  There is, however, no statutory or constitutional prohibition precluding a trial court from requiring a defendant to complete a full term of probation or community control.

Motion for Early Termination

When presented with a motion for early termination of probation or community control, the court is required to afford the movant procedural due process.  At a minimum, the court must consider the motion and exercise its discretion in granting or denying the motion.  In a case where the parties have entered into a plea agreement that sets forth a specific length of supervision, the court cannot avoid the issue by concluding that it lacks authority to consider the motion.¹

Transfer From a County for Plea, Sentence, or Participation in a Problem-Solving Court

Hon. William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

A defendant arrested or held in a county other than that in which an indictment or information is pending against him or her may state in writing that he or she wishes to plead guilty or nolo contendere, to waive trial in the county in which the indictment or information is pending, and to consent to disposition of the case in the county in which the defendant was arrested or is held, subject to the approval of the prosecuting attorney of the court in which the indictment or information is pending.  Upon receipt of the defendant’s statement and the written approval of the prosecuting attorney, the clerk of the court in which the indictment or information is pending must transmit the papers in the proceeding, or certified copies thereof, to the clerk of the court of competent jurisdiction for the county in which the defendant is held, and the prosecution must continue in that county upon the information or indictment originally filed.  In the event a fine is imposed upon the defendant in that county, two-thirds thereof must be returned to the county in which the indictment or information was originally filed.¹

A Criminal Defendant's Right of Allocution at Sentencing

Hon. William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

In Florida, a criminal defendant prior to sentencing has the opportunity to make an unsworn statement without restraint to the sentencing judge in allocution.  The opportunity of the defendant to allocute gives the defendant a chance to express to the sentencing judge any additional information that will aid the court in making a sound and reasoned judgment as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the convicted defendant.¹  Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.720(b) specifically provides that the sentencing court “shall entertain submissions and evidence by the parties that are relevant to the sentence.”²  The language of the rule is mandatory,³ and under this rule, the defendant is entitled to make a statement and present argument to the court.⁴  The sentencing court cannot deny a defendant an opportunity to make such a statement before sentencing.⁵ The court cannot impose sentence without letting the defendant read his or her entire prepared statement at the sentencing hearing.⁶  Note that, while allocation is unsworn and cannot be compelled to be under oath outside the terms of a plea agreement, the court can require the defendant to be under oath if he or she offering testimony to a jury or to the judge on a sentencing departure issue.⁷

FOOTNOTES

¹Jean-Baptiste v. State, 155 So. 3d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

²Fla. R. Crim. P. Rule 3.720(b).

³Culbertson v. State, 306 So. 2d 142, 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (citing Mask v. State, 289 So. 2d 385, 387 (Fla.1973)).

⁴Davenport v. State, 787 So. 2d 32, 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

⁵Ventura v. State, 741 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

⁶Hodierne v. State, 141 So. 3d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014).

⁷Jean-Baptiste v. State, 155 So. 3d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

The Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet Explained

Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges in Florida's circuit courts rely heavily on scoresheets in the vast majority of their sentencing hearings.  Scoresheets are required by law in most felony sentencings.  A properly filled out, accurate and complete sentencing scoresheet helps to ensure just sentencing and is an important safeguard against sentencing error in circuit court.

Copyright 2013 Thomson Reuters and William H. Burgess, III. Further reproduction is prohibited.

By Hon. William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

  The State of Florida has, for the past 30 years and through a succession of sentencing schemes involving the vast majority of criminal sentencings in circuit court, used printed scoresheets to collect and report sentencing data, to quantify sentencing factors, and to document sentences imposed. Since October 1, 1998, the State has used the Rule 3.992(a) Criminal Punishment Code Scoresheet and the Rule 3.992(b) Criminal Punishment Code Supplemental Scoresheet, illustrated below.  This post presents a comprehensive explanation of the proper completion and utilization of the Criminal Punishment Code sentencing scoresheet.

Some Comparative Statistics on Florida Sentencing

Sentencing is the post-conviction phase of the criminal justice process in which the court imposes certain sanctions on the defendant. It is a critical step in the process and one that is both complex and susceptible to error.

Florida courts do a lot of sentencing. According to data kept by the Florida Supreme Court, in the period from January 1986 through June 2011 (the last month for which statistics have been published) the cases of 4,530,332 defendants involving 8,791,733 separate criminal counts were disposed of in the circuit courts of the state, the cases of 10,900,786 criminal defendants were disposed of in the county courts, and 10,962,695 criminal cases were disposed of in the traffic courts. In that time, there were 3,531,714 pleas before trial in the circuit courts and 6,779,757 pleas before trial in the county courts, while the cases of a total of 284,785 defendants were resolved upon conviction after trial in both courts.

Vacatur of Sentences Obtained by Fraud or Misrepresentation

Under the common law, any court of record had absolute control over its orders, decrees, etc., and could amend, vacate, modify or change them at any time during the term at which rendered. Control now is in the courts during the period allowed by the rules of court, terms (as used in common law) having been abandoned. This restriction does, however, not apply to such orders, judgments or decrees which are the product of fraud, collusion, deceit, mistake, etc. Such may be vacated, modified, opened or otherwise acted upon at any time. This is an inherent power of courts of record, and one essential to insure the true administration of justice and the orderly function of the judicial process. As between the parties any judgment or order procured from any court by the practice of fraud or deception may, in appropriate proceedings, be recalled and set aside at any time, whether entered in a civil case or a criminal case.¹

Consequences of a Defendant's Failure to Abide by a Plea Agreement

The legal consequences of a defendant’s failure to abide by a plea agreement are profound and well-defined under Florida law.

Defendants who freely and voluntarily enter into a plea agreement with the State are required to abide by the terms of that agreement; if they do not, the State can move under Rule 3.170(g) to have the court vacate the plea and corresponding sentence.[1] Once a defendant reneges on the plea agreement, the State has the option of withdrawing from the agreement, and either going to trial or seeking a new agreement.[2] If a criminal defendant does not feel so bound by the terms of a plea agreement that he or she will comply with it, then the State is likewise not bound.[3]

What "Before the Court for Sentencing" Means

A court may not impose sentence for an offense unless the offense is before the court for sentencing. The matter of whether an offense is, or is not, pending before the court for sentencing often leads to considerable debate. As a general rule, an offense should not be considered as "pending" before the trial court for sentencing unless a verdict of guilt or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere has been obtained; offenses for which the defendant has entered a not guilty plea or denial, and is awaiting trial or a final hearing, are not considered pending for sentencing purposes.(1) One scoresheet must be used for every pending case that meets this definition.(2) As a corollary, a presumption then arises that sentencing should not be delayed merely because other cases that fail to meet this definition are pending against the same defendant in the same court.(3) In other words, a judge does not have to wait for disposition of a pending case before imposing sentence in a case that has been resolved by plea or trial.(4)


A broad exception to this rule is that defendants are allowed to move a trial court to delay sentencing so that a single scoresheet can be used in two or more cases pending against the same defendant in the same court at the same time, regardless of whether a plea of guilty or nolo contendere or a conviction has been obtained. The trial court must grant the motion when the defendant can show that the use of a single scoresheet would not result in an unreasonable delay in sentencing. For each sentence that would not be unreasonably delayed, the trial court must order simultaneous sentencing.(5) There is, however, no requirement that a trial court delay sentencing on a completed case while awaiting the outcome of future trials where it is only speculative that those other cases might be ready for disposition soon and where those cases in fact might not be ready for disposition for many months or years.(6)

Pre-Plea Downward Departure Sentencing Hearings

One of the most practiced ways to mitigate a defendant’s sentence, where no other alternatives are available, is through a downward departure from the Criminal Punishment Code sentencing "floor." It is, in fact the practice of some defense counsel to seek a "departure hearing" before a defendant enters a plea to test the court for leniency, although some courts will not entertain such a hearing until the defendant has pled.


Pre-plea "departure hearings" comprise an unauthorized blending of plea discussion and agreement with the conduct of a sentencing hearing, and the creation of a legal fiction that an offense is not "before the court for sentencing," so as to evade requirements of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure and statutory law. Such hearings are a means for the defendant to get a commitment from the presiding judge as to whether and how much of a downward departure sentence he or she will impose if and when the defendant decides to plea without making any commitment in return. Typically, these hearings are used by the defendant to put on evidence in mitigation without the defendant accepting any responsibility for having committed any wrongful act, which is a contradiction the Rules of Criminal Procedure are designed to prevent. This technique also places a legally unrecognizable burden on the prosecutor and any victim or victims involved to overcome such mitigation and persuade the judge not to depart downward in the event that the defendant does decide to enter a plea. Under the former guidelines, where upward departure was a possibility, the prosecutor would often try to blunt the defense request for downward departure by putting on evidence in aggravation and requesting an upward departure during the same hearing. Additionally, the conduct of a pre-plea departure hearing tends to invert and short-circuit the trial process by substituting the defendant’s case for leniency for the prosecutor’s presentation of all relevant evidence of guilt before a jury in a trial. Such a procedure is also contrary to principles of judicial economy and entails the potential for otherwise unnecessary and avoidable recusal consequences.