JAMES M. JORDAN, 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 held that the revocation of probation was improper because the late filing of monthly reports was not a substantial or willful violation, and the other alleged violation was not proven.
Appellant's probation was revoked based on late monthly reports and alleged marijuana offenses. Appellant claimed hospitalization caused the late repo…
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 Technical Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
James Jordan appeals the revocation of his probation based upon his failure to file his monthly reports to his probation officer in a timely fashion. Appellant was charged with two violations. However, one was not established and the aforementioned violation was technical. We reverse.
Appellant was placed on probation for the offense of possession of cocaine. During the probationary period the affidavit for violation of probation charged that three of his monthly reports were received after the date each was due. The other alleged violation was delivery and possession of marijuana.
At appellant’s probation revocation hearing, appellant stated that he had been in the hospital in December, that he had notified his probation officer of that fact and it had caused the delay in the filing of his reports for the next three months. The probation officer stated that the late reports did not mention the surgery but the judge stated he would assume appellant was in the hospital in December. Inasmuch as the allegations charging delivery and possession of marijuana were neither admitted nor proved, the trial court could not base the revocation of appellant’s probation upon such a finding. Further, while it is undisputed that appellant filed his three monthly reports a total of eleven days late, it was not a substantial or willful violation of probation. McKeever v. State, 359 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, the order of revocation of probation is reversed.
BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)…ircumstances where revocation is patently unfair. For example, in Hightower v. State, 529 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), the record was not clear as to whether the defendant was informed that he had the duty to file a report, and in Jordan v. State, 412 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the defendant filed three reports late because he was in the hospital. However, there are also circumstances where failure to file a single report may be a willful and substantial violation which would justify revocation. In Schw…
-
Frazier v. State, 587 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…llful in nature, and therefore cannot constitute a basis for violating his probation. Drayton v. State, 490 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (failure to file timely monthly report not willful where defendant arrested and incarcerated); Jordan v. State, 412 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (failure to file timely monthly reports not willful where defendant hospitalized); Kotowski v. State, 344 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (no willful violation of probation where defendant’s failure to obtain consent to move from re…
-
Grimsley v. State, 830 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…never mentioned at the probation revocation hearing. A revocation of probation cannot be based solely on hearsay evidence, Kipp v. [*120] State, 657 So. 2d 931, 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), or on allegations neither admitted nor proved, Jordan v. State, 412 So. 2d 970, 971 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The State failed to prove by competent evidence that Grimsley violated condition three. Ellis did testify that Grimsley had not reported to her monthly, as required by conditions eleven and twenty-three of the probation ord…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McKEEVER v. State, 359 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)