CopyCited 23 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 537277
...ossession of cocaine, and possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis. Neither in the written petition to enter the plea, nor in the plea colloquy, was Daniels informed that as a result of his plea, his driver's license would be revoked pursuant to section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1997). [1] The trial court sentenced Daniels on April 29, 1997. After the court pronounced sentence, the state requested that the trial court impose the mandatory license revocation. The court ordered revocation pursuant to section 322.055 and directed Daniels to surrender his license to the clerk....
...ffect on the range of the defendant's punishment." Cuthrell v. Director, Patuxent Institution,
475 F.2d 1364, 1366 (4th Cir.) cert. denied,
414 U.S. 1005,
94 S.Ct. 362,
38 L.Ed.2d 241 (1973). In this case, the two year license revocation mandated by section
322.055(1) *829 was definite, immediate, and automatic upon Daniels' conviction....
...The defendant was placed on probation, not sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment, so the effect of the licence suspension upon him was not minimal. For these reasons, prior to accepting the plea, the trial court was required to determine that the defendant understood that he was subject to the section 322.055(1) suspension....
...Grapski did not deal with the necessity of ensuring that a defendant's plea is voluntarily entered under Rule 3.172. We reverse and remand to the trial court to allow Daniels the opportunity to withdraw his pleas. See Garza v. State,
519 So.2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). STONE, C.J., and TAYLOR, J., concur. NOTES [1] Section
322.055(1) provides in pertinent part: [U]pon the conviction of a person 18 years of age or older for possession or sale of ......
CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2005 WL 1025960
...For the possession of oxycodone offense, we reverse and remand for the trial court to correct the conditions to reflect that the trial court directs the Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles to revoke Ayoub's driving privilege for two years. See § 322.055, Fla....
CopyCited 11 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 33 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 645
...State,
875 So.2d 572 (Fla.2004), and Prianti v. State,
819 So.2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In Daniels, the defendant pled nolo contendere to charges of possession of cocaine and marijuana, and the trial court revoked his driver's license pursuant to section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1997)....
...nsequences of the sentence which the trial court can impose. "
511 So.2d at 961 (emphasis added). In contrast to the statutes at issue in Daniels and other cases, in which the court revoked the driver's licenses of certain drug offenders, see, e.g., §
322.055, Fla....
...§
984.09(4)(d) (expressly defining the suspension of a child's driving privileges as an appropriate punishment for contempt of court, as does Fla. Stat. § 985.216(4)(d)). Generally in delinquency cases the Court may revoke or suspend the child's drivers license, Fla. Stat. § 985.231(a)(4). Finally, Fla. Stat. §
322.055 expressly requires the Court to direct the department to revoke driving privileges of any person 18 years of age or older convicted of possession or sale or conspiracy to possess, sell or traffic in any controlled substance....
...her license should not be revoked. §
322.27(5), Fla. Stat. [2] This statute provides that upon conviction for possession or sale of a controlled substance, the trial court shall direct the Department to revoke the defendant's driver's license. See §
322.055(1), Fla....
CopyCited 10 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 716760
...revoked. The defendant entered pleas of nolo contendere to possession of cocaine and possession of less than 20 grams of cannabis. At no time was the defendant informed that as a result of his plea, his driver's license would be revoked pursuant to section 322.055(1)....
...tenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment, the effect of the license suspension upon him was not minimal. Thus, prior to accepting the plea, the trial court was required to determine that appellant understood that he was subject to a suspension under 322.055(1)....
CopyCited 7 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 196284
...[2] We have examined the six points the defendant raises on appeal, and find merit in two. These relate to his sentence. First, the defendant argues the court erred in adjudicating him guilty of attempted purchase of cocaine in violation of section
893.13(1)(a), and in suspending his driver's license pursuant to section
322.055(1)....
...13. In deciding this, we also reject the defendant's contention that adjudicating him guilty of an attempt in violation of section
777.04, would divest the trial court of its jurisdiction to direct that his driving privileges be revoked, pursuant to section
322.055(1)....
...)." Since the defendant violated both sections
893.13 and
777.04(1), the court may properly direct the Department of Highway Safety to revoke his driver's license. In revoking the defendant's driver's license, the court did not follow the mandate of section
322.055(1)....
...Any person who violates this provision with respect to: 1. A controlled substance named or described in s.
893.03(1)(a), (1)(b), (1)(d), (2)(a), or (2)(b) is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in ss.
775.082,
775.083, and
775.084. Section
777.011, Florida Statutes (1987). [2] Section
322.055, Florida Statutes (1987), reads: (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of s....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1995 WL 80005
...The trial court revoked appellant's probation and adjudicated him guilty of possession of cocaine. Appellant was sentenced to thirty months incarceration. In addition, the trial court orally directed that appellant's driver's license be suspended for two years. This appeal is solely from that direction. Section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1993), provides a basis for the revocation of a driver's license based upon a conviction involving a controlled substance....
...ss or employment purposes only, as defined by s.
322.271, if the person is otherwise qualified for such a license. Accordingly, the trial court had the authority to direct the department to revoke appellant's driver's license for two years. However, section
322.055 does not provide the trial court with the authority to suspend or revoke the license itself, which is what it did, thereby invading the province of the department....
...2d DCA 1989), called into doubt on other grounds, Spera v. State,
556 So.2d 487 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse that part of the trial judge's order being appealed and remand with direction for the trial court to order the department to revoke appellant's license for two years pursuant to section
322.055....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 1174619
...(2000). For a plea to be voluntary, the defendant must be fully advised of the direct consequences of the plea. Daniels v. State,
716 So.2d 827, 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We have held that a mandatory two year revocation of a driver's license under section
322.055(1) is a direct consequence....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 WL 782
...Victoria Blair was adjudged guilty of possession of cocaine. The trial judge placed appellant on three years' probation with the following as a condition of probation: "Your drivers [sic] license will be revoked for a period of thirty-six (36) months... ." Section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1987) authorizes the sentencing court to direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke for a period of up to two years a driver's license of a person adjudged guilty of possession of cocaine....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1998 WL 10766
...At that time he will no longer be subject to the mandatory suspension of his driving privileges required by section
322.056(1). The State alleges, and it is clear from the transcript of the proceeding, that the trial judge postponed disposition in order to avoid the license suspension required by the statute. Although section
322.055, Florida Statutes (1995), imposes similar suspension requirements on adults who are convicted of certain drug offenses, this statute would not apply to M.D. after he reaches the age of 18 because he was not prosecuted as an adult. By arranging for his dispositional hearing just days after his eighteenth birthday, the trial court has created a small window between sections
322.055 and
322.056, Florida Statutes (1995), which allows M.D. to avoid the sanction mandated by these statutes. The State argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by manipulating its docket to shield M.D. from the reach of the statute. We agree. The language of section
322.055 leaves no discretion in the presiding judge....
CopyCited 4 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 1993 WL 105445
...Specifically, appellant contended the imposition of $500.00 as costs for participation in the Bay County Work Program is not authorized by statute, and (2) the trial court's suspension of his driver's license was improper, because it was not done in accordance with section 322.055, Florida Statutes....
...In the instant case, appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for one offense, and placed on probation with respect to the other offense. The language of section
948.01(3)(a) appears to limit the authority to suspend a driver's license to those cases where community control was imposed in lieu of probation. Nevertheless, section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes, [1] authorizes the *740 sentencing court to direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke the driving privileges, for a period of two years, of any person convicted of possession or sale of a controlled substance....
...r a period of two years. Alternatively, the trial court may order, as a condition of probation, that appellant not drive a motor vehicle for two years. See Blair v. State,
554 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). WIGGINTON and WOLF, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] §
322.055(1), Fla....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 14399, 2009 WL 3047325
...The supreme court rejected this argument, ruling the provision did not constitute a punishment but was instead part of a civil regulatory scheme for the protection of the public. [12] In Lite v. State,
617 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1993), the court considered the constitutionality of section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes, which provided that the sentencing court "shall direct the department to revoke the driver's license" of a person convicted of a specified drug offense. §
322.055(1), Fla....
...In contrast to the forfeiture action where there is a distinct interest in property, there is no property interest in possessing a driver's license. Rather, driving is a privilege, and the privilege can be taken away or encumbered as a means of meeting a legitimate legislative goal.... Accordingly, subsection 322.055(1) is constitutionally valid even without the requirement that a motor vehicle be used during the commission of a crime....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 4193, 2010 WL 1347321
...Specifically, the written sentence included the following relevant provision: " X the defendant's Drivers License shall be suspended for 2 years." A trial court may not direct that a defendant's license be suspended. See Parker v. State,
655 So.2d 1308, 1308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding, per section
322.055, Florida Statutes, a trial court only has the authority to direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to suspend a defendant's license, but may not revoke the license itself); Crawford v....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1566584
...The trial court found that exigent circumstances permitted the search; we agree and affirm the trial court's order denying the motion to suppress. Huesca next submits that the trial court improperly directed the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke his license pursuant to section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (2001). Section 322.055(1) provides, in part, that: [U]pon the conviction of a person 18 years of age or older for possession or sale of, trafficking in, or conspiracy to possess, sell, or traffic in a controlled substance, the court shall direct the department to revoke the driver's license or driving privilege of the person....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1992 WL 7213
...Jorandby, Public Defender, and Robert Friedman, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Appellee, Terry Lite pled guilty to possession of cocaine in violation of section
893.03(2)(a)4, Florida Statutes (1990). Pursuant to section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), appellee's license was required to be suspended for two years. During appellee's sentencing, the trial court refused to enforce section
322.055(1), finding it unconstitutional as violative of both substantive due process and equal protection under the Florida and Federal Constitutions....
...numerated offenses and the use of a motor vehicle, and further, not all drug offenders were subject to the statute's license revocation sanction. See Art. I, §§ 2, 9 Fla. Const. This court recently reversed a trial court's similar refusal to apply section
322.055(1) in State v. Lawton,
588 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We take this opportunity to explicitly state that which is implicit in the result reached in Lawton. In so doing, we reaffirm our decision that section
322.055(1) is constitutional, and therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to enforce the provisions of the statute. Section
322.055(1), provides in pertinent part: upon the conviction of a person 18 years of age or older for possession or sale of, trafficking in, or conspiracy to possess, sell, or traffic in a controlled substance, the court shall direct the department to revoke the driver's license or driving privilege of the person....
...n of the public health, safety and welfare, and we may not substitute our judgment for that of the legislature as to the wisdom or policy of the legislative act." Finally, the statute's two year period of license revocation is not unduly oppressive. Section 322.055(1) reads that the revocation period "shall be 2 years or until the person is evaluated for and, if deemed necessary by the evaluating agency, completes a drug treatment and rehabilitation program approved or regulated by the Departmen...
...a license for driving privileges restricted to business or employment purposes only. Id. Equally without merit is the argument that the statute violates equal protection principles because it does not treat all drug offenders similarly. Pursuant to section 322.055(1), only those convicted of possession, sale or trafficking of controlled substances must have their licenses revoked. Once again, since there is no fundamental right to drive and the statute is not directed toward a suspect class, section 322.055 must be analyzed under a rational basis standard....
...4th DCA 1986), approved,
515 So.2d 217 (1987) (statutorily created classification need not be perfect, nor must legislature, in interest of equal protection, either solve all facets of a problem at once or leave problem wholly unresolved). Applying these principles to the instant case, section
322.055(1) does not violate equal protection even though it does not encompass all drug offenders. Consequently, we reaffirm our view that section
322.055(1) is constitutional and reverse and remand for the trial court to enforce the statute....
CopyCited 3 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 WL 3733197
...nalty. In Daniels v. State,
716 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), a defendant who had entered a plea to drug possession moved to withdraw his plea because he had not been informed that as a result of his plea his driver's license would be revoked under section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1997)....
...ffect on the range of the defendant's punishment." Cuthrell v. Director, Patuxent Institution,
475 F.2d 1364, 1366 (4th Cir.) cert. denied,
414 U.S. 1005,
94 S.Ct. 362,
38 L.Ed.2d 241 (1973). In this case, the two year license revocation mandated by section
322.055(1) was definite, immediate, and automatic upon Daniels' conviction....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 105634
...NOTES [1] As of October 1, 1987, the sentencing court may direct the department to revoke for a period of up to two years the driver's license or driving privilege of any person adjudicated guilty or delinquent of any violation of section 893 involving any substance listed in sections
893.03(1) or (2). §
322.055(1), Fla....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 2003 WL 1386668
...Thus, it is deemed denied and is preserved for consideration on appeal. See Hart v. State,
773 So.2d 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Kimbrough v. State,
766 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Frasilus argues the special condition was improper as applied to him because section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes, [3] requires a "conviction." As noted above, Frasilus' adjudication was withheld....
...ate v. Keirn,
720 So.2d 1085, 1086 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). [4] Not unexpectedly, appellate courts do not always agree with one another on the implication of the context for this "slippery" term. [5] We do not reach the merits of the issue as to whether section
322.055, Florida Statutes requires an adjudication of guilt to be applicable, because the imposition of this special condition of probation in this case presents a clear and simple error....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2002 WL 429073
...g his rights); Roberts v. State,
670 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(same). This policy is pertinently demonstrated by Daniels v. State,
716 So.2d 827 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), where we held that the mandatory 2 year revocation of a driver's license under section
322.055(1)although not directly included within the statute under which the sentence for the offense involved in the conviction was specified was sufficiently direct for purposes of requiring the court to grant permission to withdraw the plea....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 3rd District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 4643367
...that the defendant needed to drive his vehicle to work and the trial court did not want to subject the defendant to a suspension of his driver's license. [1] This is not a valid ground for a second withhold of adjudication for a drug offense because section 322.055(1) requires the court to direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke the driver's license or driving privilege if the driver is eighteen years of age or older and is convicted of a felony drug offense....
...Because the trial court failed to articulate a valid justification for imposing a second withhold of adjudication, either in writing or orally, we reverse with directions to the trial court to either adjudicate the defendant or to allow the defendant to withdraw his plea. Reversed. NOTES [1] Section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (2007), provides for a suspension of the driver's license and driving privilege upon a conviction for possession, sale, trafficking, or conspiracy to possess, sell, or traffic a controlled substance. A driver whose license or driving privilege has been suspended or revoked can petition the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for a restricted driver's license (for work purposes, etc.) after six months of suspension. [2] Section 322.055(1) provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of s....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1991 WL 225561
...Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Melvina Racey Flaherty, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellant. No appearance for appellee. PER CURIAM. We reverse that portion of the trial court's sentencing order refusing to apply the provisions of section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1991)....
...nal", and refused to apply it here. Appellee has filed no brief and the record reflects no discussion of, or basis for, the court's ruling. The state relies on general constitutional law principles favoring approval of legislative enactments such as section 322.055(1), as well as other states' support of such enactments....
...We reverse and remand with directions that the appellee be given an opportunity to withdraw from the plea agreement giving rise to the sentence involved herein. If the plea agreement and sentence stand, the sentence should be in accord with the provisions of section 322.055(1)....
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2008 WL 34817
...Without focusing on the scoresheet, the trial court exercised its discretion and determined that a nonstate prison sanction was not appropriate, sentencing defendant to four years in prison. We reverse that portion of the sentence ordering a driver's license revocation under section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (2005)....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 2599, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 6315, 1989 WL 135512
unrelated to the offense. To the contrary, Section 322.-055(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 12300, 1995 WL 689541
STONE, Judge. We affirm an order directing the State of Florida, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to issue a driver’s license for work/business purposes to Appellee pursuant to section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes. Appellee entered a guilty plea to the charge of possession of a controlled substance. Under the authority of section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes, the state revoked his driving privileges for a period of two years. Appellee filed a motion requesting that he be permitted to obtain a driver’s license for business or employment purposes as authorized by section 322.055(1), which states, in part: upon the conviction ......
...(a), Florida Statutes. We approve the trial court’s conclusion that the effect of the reference to section
322.271 in section
322.056 was to define “business or employment purposes,” and not to superimpose the entirety of section
322.271 on to section
322.055(1)....
...fice boot camp, part of which was substance abuse training. The trial court was of the added opinion that even if the substance abuse education contemplated under
322.271(2)(a) were found to be a prerequisite to the court issuing a BPO license under
322.055, this prerequisite had been met. We do not agree with this additional conclusion, as boot camp is not an “approved substance abuse education course” as required by the statute. However, we deem the court’s additional consideration immaterial, given our interpretation of section
322.055(1). Section
322.055(1) requires an individual to go through a rehabilitation program before having his license reinstated unless the court orders DHSMV to issue a BPO license (as defined in section
322.271). Section
322.271 requires an individual to take a substance abuse education class prior to obtaining a BPO license. Certainly the legislature did not provide that the court, pursuant to section
322.055, could waive completion of a rehabilitation program to obtain a BPO license only to permit DHSMV to impose a requirement of attendance of a substance abuse education class, notwithstanding such a court order....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5512, 1996 WL 280030
...However, in so far as the sentencing documents indicate that the appellant’s license was suspended, we are returning this case to the trial court for correction. Appellant was convicted of purchase of cannabis pursuant to section
893.13(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1993). This crime is not within the ambit of section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1993) regarding the suspension of drivers licenses. See Lite v. State,
617 So.2d 1058 (Fla.1993). Accordingly, it is error for appellant’s license to be revoked by the court and reportT ing is not required to the Department of Motor Vehicles pursuant to section
322.055(1)....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 5535, 1996 WL 281499
...and we reverse. Nance entered a no contest plea to acquiring a controlled substance by fraud. He argues, and the state correctly concedes, that the trial court erred in directly suspending his license for two years. The proper procedure pursuant to section 322.055, Florida Statutes (1993), is for the trial court to direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke the driver’s license....
CopyPublished | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 8104, 2006 WL 1409101
...on probation for six months, and ordered him to perform community service. At that time, the State requested that the trial court impose the mandatory driver’s license suspension requirement contained in section
322.056, Florida Statutes, which provides: Notwithstanding the provisions of section
322.055, if a person under 18 years of age is found guilty of or delinquent for a violation of section
562.11(2),
562.111, or chapter 893, and (a) The person is eligible by reason of age for a driver’s license or driving privilege, the cour...
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 2086, 1990 WL 35355
...e in this case and in cases 89-00628 and 89-00632. There was no automobile used in any of these crimes. Nichols challenges the trial court’s order suspending his driving privileges for six years as a part of his sentence. We reverse. *105 Although section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1987), gives the trial court the authority to direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to suspend driving privileges for up to two years as part of the sentence for some crimes, the crimes committed by Nichols are not ones set forth in this statute....
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
license suspended for a period of five years. Section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes (2015), provides a basis
CopyPublished | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal
license suspended for a period of five years. Section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes (2015), provides a basis
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 7108, 1995 WL 363377
...We review an appeal from Gilbert’s conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. We affirm on all issues raised by appellant except one. We vacate that portion of the trial court’s sentencing order revoking Gilbert’s driver’s license and remand for further proceedings in accordance with section 322.055, Florida Statutes and Vinyard v....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 8350, 2004 WL 1330365
PER CURIAM. We remand for correction of a scrivener’s error in the order of probation, which should reflect that the defendant’s driver’s license is permanently revoked pursuant to section
322.28(2)(e), Florida Statutes (2002), rather than section
322.055(1)....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 7861, 1996 WL 413709
PER CURIAM. The appellant was convicted of several drug offenses, and sentences were orally pronounced. Later during the same day the court ordered the revocation of the appellant’s driver’s license pursuant to section 322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1993). The appellant contends that this was an additional sentence which was impermissibly imposed in violation of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. We conclude that it is unnecessary to decide whether the section 322.055(1) revocation constituted a sentence for double jeopardy purposes, as it was not shown on the record below that the appellant had actually begun serving the sentence originally pronounced, and double jeopardy concerns are thus not implicated by the later sentencing correction....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 177
...At that time he will no longer be subject to the mandatory suspension of his driving privileges required by section
322.056(1). The State alleges, and it is clear from the transcript of the proceeding, that the trial judge postponed disposition in order to avoid the license suspension required by the statute. Although section
322.055, Florida Statutes (1995), imposes similar suspension requirements on adults who are convicted of certain drug offenses, this statute would not apply to M.D. after he reaches the age of 18 because he was not prosecuted as an adult. By arranging for his dispositional hearing just days after his eighteenth birthday, the trial court has created a small window between sections
322.055 and
322.056, Florida Statutes (1995), which allows M.D. to avoid the sanction mandated by these statutes. The State argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by manipulating its docket to shield M.D. from the reach of the statute. We agree. The language of section
322.055 leaves no discretion in the presiding judge....
CopyPublished | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 596, 1990 WL 7529
...The appellant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine. Upon revocation of his probation for this offense, the trial court suspended his driver’s license for eight years as part of his sentence. As was stated in Blair v. State,
554 So.2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), section
322.055(1), Florida Statutes (1987), authorized the sentencing court to direct the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to revoke a driver’s license for a period of up to two years if a person is adjudicated guilty of possessing cocaine....
