JAMES WILLIAM BRAINE v. STATE OF FLORIDA, 255 So. 3d 470

Defendant James William Braine pleaded guilty to one third-degree felony (aggravated assault) and two misdemeanors; he requested the court to withhold adjudication on the felony.
Florida Statute § 775.08435(1) bars withholding adjudication for a third-degree felony if the defendant has "two or more prior withholdings of adjudication for a felony that did not arise from the same transaction as the current felony offense."
The trial court found two mitigating factors (substantially impaired capacity to conform conduct; need for specialized mental-health treatment) that could support a withhold.
The State proved Braine had two prior withholds from a single, older case; the current offense was unrelated to those prior offenses.
The trial court concluded it lacked authority to grant a third withhold under § 775.08435(1), adjudicated guilt on all counts, and sentenced Braine to probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 775.08435(1) precludes a trial court from withholding adjudication when the defendant has two prior withholds that arose from the same prior case	The statute should treat all withholds from the same sentencing transaction as one withhold, so two prior withholds in one case should not bar a future withhold	The plain text bars withholding when defendant has two or more prior withholds for felonies that did not arise from the same transaction as the current offense; only the relation between a prior felony and the current felony matters	Court held the statute bars a new withhold: the "same transaction" language looks to relationship between each prior felony and the current offense, not between prior offenses themselves; affirmed trial court

Wegner v. State, 928 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
State v. Hackley, 95 So. 3d 92 (Fla. 2012) (if statute is clear, courts apply plain meaning)
Maddox v. State, 923 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 2006) (absurdity doctrine narrow; plain meaning generally controls)
State v. Jean, 114 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding § 775.08435(1) prohibits withholding where defendant had two prior withholds)
State v. Cook, 14 So. 3d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (once defendant has a withhold, § 775.08435(1)(c) can prohibit a subsequent withhold unless offenses arise from same transaction)
Peace River/Manasota Reg'l Water Supply Auth. v. IMC Phosphates Co., 18 So. 3d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (courts cannot add words to statutes)

Disposition: Affirmed.