JOHN CAVALCANTE, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA PAROLE AND PROBATION COMMISSION, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parole Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
Appellant appeals the Florida Parole and Probation Commission’s revocation of his parole due to violation of Condition 8 which required that he live and remain at liberty without violating any law. The revocation was based upon two alleged crimes committed by appellant, one of which resulted in a jury finding of not guilty and the other was disposed of by a directed verdict of not guilty. We affirm. Appellant contends the Commission violated the principles of collateral estoppel, res judicata, or double jeopardy in convicting him on a parole violation for the same charges for which a jury and court found him not guilty. The argument made by appellant was considered by the Supreme Court of Florida in Russ v. State, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1975), in which the court concluded that an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a judge from determining, within his discretion, that a parole or probation violation has occurred based on the same conduct for which the defendant was found not guilty of a criminal offense. On the basis of Russ v. State and the decisions cited therein, we affirm.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C. J., and BOOTH, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…has occurred based on the same conduct. Russ v. State, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 924, 96 S.Ct. 267, 46 L.Ed.2d 250 (1975); State v. Green, 667 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Cavalcante v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 414 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). This is because a criminal case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and a probation violation need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Adickes v. State, 712 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Crume v. State, 703…
-
Le Roy Williams v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 469 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s initial petition for writ of habeas corpus. Cavalcante v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 414 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a petition seeking relief based upon the grounds raised in his amended petition, which was never properly before the trial court and improperly argued fo…
-
Mims v. State, 756 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974); Cavalcante v. Florida Parole Commission, 414 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also, Wigfals v. Florida Parole Commission, 691 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). W. SHARP, PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
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
- Berry v. Castro Farms, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1975)