DAVID THEODORE WIENKE, 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.
The court affirmed the revocation of appellant's probation based on his guilty plea to trespassing and failure to complete the required community correctional facility placement.
A trial court may revoke probation when the probationer commits a crime, even if the probationer disputes the circumstances of the offense.
[1] A probationer's guilty plea to a crime provides a sufficient basis for probation revocation, and the trial court's discretionary decision to revoke is not subject to appe…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's probation supervisor alleged violations based on a trespassing conviction (three days time served) and failure to complete a required year…
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 Sufficiency Of Proof cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant complains that the court improperly revoked his probation.
Appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit alleging that he had violated his probation by trespassing in violation of the law and by failing to spend a year in a community correctional facility as required by the probation order. At the hearing the state simply showed that appellant had pled guilty to a charge of trespassing for which he had been sentenced to three days time served and that apparently as a result of the conviction he would not be reaccepted into the community correctional work release center. Appellant testified that the trespass came about as a result of a misunderstanding and that it was not really his fault.
We cannot accept appellant’s argument that the proof concerning his conduct was insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the conscience of the court that the violations occurred. Appellant’s testimony about the circumstances of the trespass was certainly relevant because his conviction did not obligate the court to revoke his probation. Nevertheless, the state’s proof that he had committed a crime provided a basis upon which the court could revoke probation. E.g., Egantoff v. State, 208 So. 2d 843 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 218 So. 2d 164 (Fla.1968). Hence, this court cannot second-guess the court’s decision to do so.
AFFIRMED.
SCHEB, C.J., and GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 442 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…that portion of the finding of violation on failure to remain at liberty without violating any law, to wit: obstruction by false information. We affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation on the remaining findings of violation. Wienke v. State, 412 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Cephas v. State, 412 So. 2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Egantoff v. State, 208 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Dean v. State, 218 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1968)
- Deriggi v. State, 218 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 1968)