Case Name: Frank S. BUCKBEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1979-12-04
Citations: 378 So. 2d 39
Docket Number: No. 78-2322
Parties: Frank S. BUCKBEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before PEARSON, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 378
Pages: 39–42

Head Matter:
Frank S. BUCKBEE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 78-2322.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec. 4, 1979.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1980.
Hirschhorn & Freeman and Joel Hirsch-horn, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Paul Mendel-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON, HUBBART and SCHWARTZ, JJ.

Opinion:
PEARSON, Judge.
The defendant, Frank S. Buckbee, pled guilty to the unlawful possession of seven ounces of cannabis. He was placed on three years probation. Thereafter, the trial judge, for reasons hereafter discussed, amended the order of probation to include a nine-month jail sentence. This appeal seeks review of the order modifying probation. We reverse.
Following the guilty plea, the trial court ordered a pre-sentence investigation conducted. Subsequently, on June 26, 1978, after reading the pre-sentence investigation report which described the defendant's involvement in a separate, then-pending, federal prosecution for conspiracy to import a large quantity of marijuana, the trial court agreed with the defendant's counsel that possession of the small amount of marijuana involved in this case did not in and of itself justify any long-term imprisonment, as the defendant had no prior felony convictions. The trial court placed the defendant on three years probation, and also attempt ed to " . . . reserve the right to sentence [the defendant] to jail time, if, in fact, he is found guilty of the Federal offense »
The court then withheld adjudication of guilt and placed the defendant on three years probation. The original order of probation contained no reservations or special conditions. The trial judge then ordered the defendant to return after the disposition of the federal trial.
The federal charges against the defendant were never prosecuted after the federal court granted the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. In granting the motion, the U.S. district judge made findings of fact which purported to describe the defendant's participation in an importation of marijuana scheme. On this basis and despite the fact that there was never any adjudication of guilt in the federal case, the state trial court herein, sua sponte, amended the order of probation to include a nine-month jail sentence, nunc pro tunc to the probation imposed five months earlier.
We hold that the trial judge did not have jurisdiction to amend the order placing the defendant on probation by increasing the severity of the punishment, i. e., the imposition of a condition requiring jail time. Thus, on June 26, 1978, the trial judge entered an order which formally placed the defendant on probation and listed ten conditions of probation, which are those regularly used by the trial judge in almost every case where a defendant is sentenced to probation and no special condition is attached. This order was final and there was no right, nor could one be reserved, to add a new condition to the probation, unless the defendant violated a term of his probation and was granted a hearing on violation of probation. See Fla.R. Crim.P. 3.790(b); and Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183 (Fla.1978).
The State's position that the defendant agreed to the existence of a right in the trial judge to amend the order of probation is an attractive argument because a defendant ought not be allowed to take advantage of an error which he himself induced. See Gagnon v. State, 212 So.2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). But the argument must fail because of the underlying principle that jurisdiction may not be conferred upon a judge by agreement of the parties. See Cancela v. State, 147 Fla. 500, 2 So.2d 859 (1941). In addition, as appears from this record, the defendant was not granted a hearing on the issue of whether the trial judge's attempted reservation of jurisdic tion included a situation where the defendant was not found guilty in the federal court but was, in the opinion of the judge who dismissed the charges, actually involved in illegal activities. We know of no authority for a judge, upon dismissing the case, to enter a finding of guilty. However, we will not remand the cause for a hearing on this issue inasmuch as we find that we must reverse upon the jurisdictional issue. Perhaps what occurred in this case is proof of the rule that in matters concerning the fundamental principles of justice and liberty of individuals, the record must be absolutely clear on the question of the legality of the proceedings. Cf. the basic tenets in Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 378, 78 S.Ct. 1302, 2 L.Ed.2d 1393 (1958).
Thereupon, the sentence entered on the 4th of December, 1978, modifying the order of probation of June 26, 1978, so that, as a special condition of probation, the defendant should be confined in the Dade County Jail for a term of nine months is reversed, and it is directed that the defendant be released from custody under the terms of the order granting probation and fixing the terms thereof entered on June 26, 1978.
Reversed with directions.
. The State, relying on the following, argues that the amended order should be affirmed because the defendant agreed to the condition:
"THE COURT: Here is what is bothering me: I agree with you that but for the involvement in the Federal case, possession of this amount of marijuana would not justify any long-term imprisonment. He has no prior drug history.
"If, in fact, he is guilty of the charge in the Federal Court, obviously he is in it for money. If he is in it for the money, in it for profit, he knows the risks.
"What I intend is to put him on three years probation.
"I intend to re-evaluate and reserve the right to sentence to jail time if, in fact, he is found guilty of the Federal offense, in light of the sentence imposed by the District Judge.
"What I am suggesting to you, if, in fact, you are found guilty of any part, at all, in the conspiracy to import that large amount of marijuana, I will tell you now that I intend to modify the probation and impose state jail time in addition to Federal time. I really could not care less what punishment they give.
"If you are found innocent, I will agree that probation is sufficient under those circumstances.
"What I will do, then, is set it for report in three months. The trial before Fulton is set sometime this fall — I will set it for November 20 at 1:30 in the afternoon.
"I will sentence him then.
"Do you have anything further you would like to add?
"MR. BRANDT: No, sir."
Sfs Ht * jfc sfc $
"THE COURT: I would rather put him on three years probation but reserve the right to modify it.
"I want him on probation now so that he does not get in more trouble.
"Do you have any objection to my sentencing him in this manner?
"MR. BRANDT: No, sir.
"THE COURT: Sir, have you got an objection with it?
"MR. BUCKBEE: No, sir."