DON EVANS CIOETA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Don Evans Cioeta appealed the revocation of his probation after he was found to have violated its terms by possessing a short-barrel shotgun. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation, holding that the trial court properly conducted the probation violation hearing and did not violate Cioeta's due process rights.
The court affirmed the probation revocation, holding that probation violation hearings require only limited due process protections that are less stringent than those at trial, that a probationer has access to discovery methods if needed to prepare a defense, and that the trial court properly considered the inculpatory statement.
[1] A probation violation hearing's purpose is to satisfy the trial court's conscience regarding whether probation has been violated.
[2] Due process rights afforded at a probation violation hearing are not the same as those afforded at a trial.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the purpose of a violation of probation hearing is to satisfy the conscience of the trial court concerning whether the allowed probation has been violated”
Establishes the standard for probation violation hearings and the trial court's role
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCioeta pled guilty to sale of marijuana and was sentenced to eighteen months probation. An affidavit of probation violation was filed, and after a hea…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Don Evans Cioeta, was charged with possession and sale of marijuana and pled guilty to the sale. He was sentenced to eighteen months probation. Thereafter, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed and a hearing was held before the trial court. The court found that the appellant had violated his probation by the possession of a short-barrel shotgun. He was thereupon adjudged guilty on his guilty plea and sentenced to two years in prison. This appeal is from the revocation of probation.
Each of appellant’s points urges that the trial court violated his right to due process in the conduct of the hearing. As has often been pointed out, the purpose of a violation of probation hearing is to satisfy the conscience of the trial court concerning whether the allowed probation has been violated. See Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974); and Holmes v. State, 311 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Such a hearing must accord to the petitioner some due process rights, but these rights are not the same as those accorded to a defendant upon trial. See State v. Heath, 343 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1977); and Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1976).
On this appeal, the appellant claims that the court erred in refusing to enforce his right to pretrial discovery and by taking into consideration an inculpatory statement he had made. If a probationer needs additional information in order properly to prepare a defense to the charges, the various methods of discovery under the rules are available to him. Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978). Therefore, the appellant’s point directed to the claimed denial of discovery requires an examination of the record to see whether he was given a full opportunity to explain away the accusations against him. See Holmes v. State, 311 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Our review of the record convinces us that the appellant was given every opportunity to present any evidence that he might have to show his innocence of the charged violation.
Appellant’s point directed to the consideration of the inculpatory statement to police officers at the time of his arrest for the second crime is also without merit. See State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla.1976).
We have considered the other contentions advanced by the appellant and find that they do not present reversible error. Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cuciak v. State, 410 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1982)…the charges, the various methods of discovery under our rules are available to him.” This decision has been followed in Coby v. State, 397 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Suarez v. State, 377 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); [*918] and Cioeta v. State, 367 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Fair play and justice require that a defendant in a probation revocation hearing be entitled to reasonable discovery pursuant to rule 3.220. The framers of rule 3.220 utilized the American Bar Association’s Standards for Crimina…
-
Cuciak v. State, 394 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…under our rules are available to him. Although this language was dictum, we cannot disregard it or the various cases dealing with discovery in violation of probation matters. See Suarez v. State, 377 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Cioeta v. State, 367 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and Sukert v. State, 325 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). With great reluctance, we conclude the language from Hines requires we rule that a defendant is entitled to discovery in violation of probation proceedings. Were we consider…
-
Hezekiah Mack v. State, 436 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See State v. Fox, 404 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hudson v. State, 395 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Cioeta v. State, 367 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)
- State v. Allen, 335 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1976)
- Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1978)
- State v. Heath, 343 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1977)
- Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1976)
- Kalvin Holmes v. State, 311 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)