MARVIN LEONARD A/K/A WILLIAM OXENDINE, 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.
Marvin Leonard appeals his probation revocation and resulting four-year concurrent sentence, arguing the revocation hearing was inadequate. The appellate court reversed, finding Leonard was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his position and the trial court failed to clarify which violations he admitted to or provide sufficient evidence of the alleged violations.
The court held that Leonard did not receive an adequate revocation hearing. While the strict requirements of Boykin v. Alabama need not be followed precisely in probation revocation proceedings, a probationer must be given a reasonable opportunity to present his position, which was absent here.
[1] A probation revocation hearing must provide the probationer a reasonable opportunity to present their position.
[2] A trial court must afford a probationer a fuller hearing, including an inquiry into whether the probationer admits to any of the alleged violations.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“From this record, we cannot discern where, if ever, Leonard actually pleaded guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere to any charges.”
Establishes the fundamental procedural deficiency—the trial court failed to clearly establish Leonard's plea or admission to the violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeonard was placed on probation after pleading nolo contendere to burglary of a dwelling. During probation, he was charged with violating three condit…
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 Boykin V. Alabama cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Marvin Leonard appeals from the revocation of his probation after which he was sentenced to two four-year terms of imprisonment to run concurrently. We address the question whether there has been an adequate revocation hearing. After reviewing this somewhat confusing record, we believe Leonard was not given an adequate hearing.
Appellant was charged with burglary of a dwelling and, after a plea of nolo conten-dere, he was placed on probation. During his probationary period, an affidavit was filed charging him with the violation of condition (1) which required the filing of monthly reports; violation of condition (2) relating to the paying of supervisory fees; and violation of condition (8) involving a failure to report to the probation officer’s office.
During Leonard’s first probationary period, he was also charged (under an assumed name of William Oxendine) with burglary of a conveyance. Because of the use of a different name, this fact was not ascertained until later. As “Oxendine”, Leonard had entered a nolo plea to that charge and also received a period of probation. Thereafter, another affidavit was filed citing a violation of condition (8) which specified that he was to promptly and truthfully answer all inquiries directed to him by the court or the probation officer. On the same day, a short hearing was held to take up the allegations of probation violation. After reading part of the warrant, which cited the three violations of probation for the offense of burglary of a dwelling, Leonard’s attorney made the following statement:
Your Honor, he would also . . . your hon-or, as to violating condition (8) on that warrant which states he would promptly and truthfully answer all inquiries, he would admit to having violated that as he did tell a lie to his probation officer. Appellant’s counsel then stated to the court that she had explained to appellant that the court intended to impose a four — year sentence. Then she argues that there were mitigating circumstances. Immediately after appellant was adjudicated guilty, Leonard indicated to his counsel that he wished to hire another attorney. From this record, we cannot discern where, if ever, Leonard actually pleaded guilty, not guilty or nolo contendere to any charges.
While in a probation revocation hearing, the requirements of Boykin v. Alabama,
need not be fulfilled to the letter, we do require that the probationer be given a reasonable opportunity to present his position,2 which was not done here. Under these circumstances, we believe the trial judge should have afforded the probationer a fuller hearing, including an inquiry as to whether he was admitting guilt to one, all, or none of the violations. Also, in the instant case, little, if any, evidence to substantiate the violations was presented. Therefore, we REVERSE, set aside the judgments of guilt and sentence and REMAND for another hearing on all alleged probation violations.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur. . 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
. Washington v. State, 284 So. 2d 236, 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); McNeely v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…itted that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The appellant was allowed to state his position, and in seeking mitigation he also admitted violating condition three of his probation. Washington; McNeely. See also Leonard v. State, 391 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). We agree, however, with the appellant’s contention that the court erred by not entering proper orders finding that the appellant had violated probation. The [*945] record contains forms entitled “Memo of Sentence of the Court”…
-
Randall v. State, 741 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…cause the State presented no evidence in this case on several of the alleged violations and it cannot be said that Randall ever entered a knowing admission to any of the alleged violations, Randall is entitled to a new hearing. See Leonard v. State, 391 So. 2d 323, 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). At that hearing, the court should inquire of Randall as to whether he admits guilt to any of the violations and should afford him a reasonable opportunity to present his position. Id. at 325. The court should also hear evide…
-
Ashton Gomez v. State, 211 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…l v. State, 741 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (where there was nothing in the record to show that the defendant ever entered a knowing admission to the alleged violations of probation, the defendant was entitled to a new hearing); Leonard v. State, 391 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (where appellate court was unable to determine from the record whether the probationer ever actually pleaded guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere to the violation of probation charges, the court set aside the judgments of guilt…
Authorities Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969)
- McNEELY v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Smith v. State, 284 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)