ANGELO PEDROSO, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Angelo Pedroso appealed the revocation of his probation, challenging several grounds cited by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the revocation on two grounds (unauthorized building entry and failure to pay child support) but struck findings regarding other alleged violations.
The court affirmed probation revocation on two grounds: the unauthorized entry into the building (violating Section 810.08 and probation condition (4)) and the failure to make child support payments (admitted by guilty plea). However, the court struck the findings regarding violations of conditions (2) and (7) and the second special condition.
[1] A defendant's unauthorized entry into a building can satisfy the elements of burglary and violate a condition of probation.
[2] A guilty plea to a violation of probation constitutes an in-court confession and an agreement for the court to enter a judgment of conviction.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There was sufficient evidence [*1125] to satisfy the conscience of the court that the appellant violated both Section 810.08, Florida Statutes (1977), and condition (4) of his probation by this offense.”
Establishes the standard for sufficiency of evidence in probation revocation cases regarding the unauthorized building entry
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePedroso was on probation with multiple conditions. The trial court revoked his probation based on several grounds: (1) unauthorized entry into Univers…
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 Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Angelo Pedroso appeals from the revocation of his probation on the grounds that the trial court erred by revoking the appellant’s probation on several grounds which were not proven. While we partially agree with the appellant’s contention, we find no need to reverse. One ground relied upon by the trial court in revoking the appellant’s probation was the appellant’s unauthorized entry into Universal Car Loading and Distributing Company in Tampa, Florida. There was sufficient evidence to satisfy the conscience of the court that the appellant violated both Section 810.08, Florida Statutes (1977), and condition (4) of his probation by this offense. See Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974).
A second ground for the revocation order was that the appellant violated the special condition of his probation order requiring him to make child support payments. The appellant pleaded guilty to this violation; it is well-settled that a guilty plea “is an in-court confession and an agreement for the court to enter a judgment of conviction.” Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898, 902 (Fla.1979).
We find no error in the lower court’s revocation of the appellant’s probation on this ground.
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation on the grounds that he violated condition (4) of his probation by the unauthorized entry into the Universal Car Loading and Distributing Company building, and that he violated the special condition of his probation by failing to make child support payments. We strike from the revocation order the finding that the appellant violated conditions (2) and (7) and the finding that he violated the second “special condition” of his probation. The order, judgment and sentence are affirmed in all other respects.
GRIMES, C. J., and RYDER and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nicolaas Mathias Huppertz v. State, 399 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ere expressly abandoned by the state at the hearing. Their inclusion in the order of revocation was therefore obviously erroneous. Hence, the findings of violations of conditions (1), (5) and (10) are stricken from the order below. Pedroso v. State, 380 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). . Since it clearly — and concededly — appears that the check was secured by the police incident to an arrest which was not based on probable cause, this ruling was entirely correct. . The state nolle prossed the grand theft cas…
-
Tackett v. State, 413 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…he written order of revocation will conform to the oral pronouncement, we strike from the revocation order the finding that appellant also violated condition (5). The order, judgment and sentence are affirmed in all other respects. Pedroso v. State, 380 So. 2d 1124 (Fla.2d DCA 1980). HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Gissendanner v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Robinson v. State, 373 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 1979)
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)