ANTHONY HALL, 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.
A probationer has no privilege against self-incrimination regarding offenses committed after probation for which they cannot be subsequently prosecuted.
Appellant challenged the revocation of his probation, arguing he was unconstitutionally compelled to testify about crimes committed after his probatio…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Appellant Hall challenges the trial court’s revocation of his probation. He contends the court erred in requiring him to testify, over his objection, as to his having been convicted and sentenced for certain crimes committed after he was placed on probation. Hall argues that the requirement that he testify violated his constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
We reject appellant’s contention. In Dearing v. State, 388 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), cert. denied, 399 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 1981), the court held that a probationer has no privilege against self-incrimination with respect to an offense he committed after being placed on probation, and for which he could not be subsequently prosecuted. We agree.
We reject appellant’s reliance on Meehan v. State, 397 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), where we held that during the course of habitual offender proceedings the defendant could not be required to testify that he had been previously convicted of other crimes. There, we reasoned that the sentence enhancement proceedings were sufficiently related to the criminal trial as to require the application of the rule that the defendant cannot be forced to convict himself by his own testimony. However, there is no prohibition against requiring a probationer to testify in a revocation proceeding, subject to his privilege against self-incrimination with respect to specific conduct and circumstances concerning a separate criminal offense. State v. Heath, 343 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1977). In the instant case, the appellant cannot be subsequently prosecuted by virtue of having been forced to - testify as to his previous convictions. Therefore, Meehan has no application to this case, and we affirm the revocation of Hall’s probation.
Affirmed.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hooper v. State, 452 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ation must be applicable to specific conduct and circumstances concerning a separate criminal offense. Id. at 16. I see no difference in the inquiry being made in the office of a supervisor or at the probation revocation hearing. See Hall v. State, 421 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In order to understand the present setting of the primary issue, I believe we must consider the relationship of two decisions by this nation’s highest court, one by this state’s highest court and the governing Florida Statute, a…
-
Felton v. State, 428 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hall v. State, 421 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). GRIMES, A.C.J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Lester v. State, 745 So. 2d 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…victed in these two eases. The state might properly have called appellant as a witness and asked her if she was the same person involved in the two judgments of conviction. See Watson v. State, 388 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hall v. State, 421 So. 2d 188, 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Bearing v. State, 388 So. 2d 296, 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). However, there was no testimony at the hearing linking appellant to the two certified copies of the criminal convictions. There was no evidence introduced at the hear…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Heath, 343 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1977)
- Dearing v. State, 388 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Meehan v. State, 397 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)