THOMAS JAMES HUDSON, 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.
Hudson appeals the revocation of his probation and imposition of a five-year prison sentence for aggravated assault. The trial court found he violated probation by severely beating his mother, and Hudson argues the evidence fails to prove he used a deadly weapon as required for aggravated assault.
The trial court's revocation of probation and sentencing are affirmed. Sufficient evidence exists from which the trial court could find Hudson violated his probation, and in probation revocation proceedings, the State does not bear the same burden of proof as in a criminal prosecution.
[1] A probation violation may be established by evidence that the probationer committed aggravated assault, even if the evidence does not prove all elements of the crime beyo…
[2] In probation revocation proceedings, the State's burden of proof is lower than in a criminal prosecution.
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“In a probation revocation proceedings, the State does not have the same burden of proof as in a prosecution in the first instance.”
Establishes the lower evidentiary standard applicable to probation revocation cases compared to criminal prosecutions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHudson was on probation with a condition not to violate any law. He severely beat his mother, kicking her repeatedly and allegedly striking her with a…
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 Burden Of Proof In Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant seeks review of an order of the trial court, revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment and twelve years’ probation for several counts of violation of narcotics laws.
An affidavit for violation of probation was filed, charging the appellant with aggravated assault. At hearing thereon, the evidence showed the appellant had severely beaten his mother, causing both internal and external injuries, necessitating hospitalization for at least a week, and facial paralysis estimated to remain for a period of at least six months. In beating his mother, the appellant kicked her repeatedly and allegedly struck her on the head with a lamp. After all the evidence was in, the trial judge stated that shoes were a deadly weapon and he entered the order appealed.
The appellant is attempting to gain a reversal on the basis that the evidence fails to prove all the elements of the crime of aggravated assault, in that it failed to show the appellant used a deadly weapon.
There is sufficient evidence from which the trial court could find, in the exercise of its discretion, that the appellant had violated his probation. See: Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So. 2d 607 (1947); Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974). In a probation revocation proceedings, the State does not have the same burden of proof as in a prosecution in the first instance. See: Bernhardt v. State, supra; Russ v. State, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1975); Snyder v. State, 362 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). A condition of the probation was that the defendant would not violate any law. Proof of conviction is not necessary to constitute a violation of probation. The order under review is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
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).…
-
Williams v. State, 430 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…ng that appellant was guilty of burglary and grand theft. We have considered the record and briefs and conclude that the trial court did not err in revoking appellant’s probation. See Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974); Hudson v. State, 395 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Adams v. State, 330 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed. Affirmed.…
-
Anthony v. Edwards, 405 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Hudson v. State, 395 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Williamson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Scherer v. State, 366 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 (Fla. 1947)
- Berry v. Castro Farms, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1975)
- Gonzalez v. State, 159 Fla. 681 (Fla. 1947)
- Snyder v. State, 362 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)