STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES EARL SMITH, 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 probationary period expires on the day before the anniversary date of the order, and a violation must occur within that term.
[1] A probationary period begins on the date the probation order is imposed, and the probationer is subject to the order from that moment.
[2] A three-year probationary period imposed on February 9, 1979, ends on February 8, 1982.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn affidavit for violation of probation was filed one day after the three-year probationary period had allegedly expired. The State argued the probati…
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 Jurisdiction To Revoke Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Chief Judge.
An affidavit charging appellant with a violation of probation was dismissed by the trial court for the reason that the probationary period had expired one day prior to the time the affidavit was filed. The State appeals. We affirm.
On February 9, 1979, appellee was placed on probation for three years. Because of criminal activity in which he was allegedly involved, an affidavit for violation of probation was filed February 9, 1982. The State contends that under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.040, the day of the probation order is not counted, thus the three-year period would end February 9, 1982. Using this analysis, the State contends that the probation order was still in effect on the day the affidavit for violation was filed. Appellee contends, however, that to sustain this position, we would have to agree that appellee was not subject to the probation order on February 9, 1979, the date on which it was imposed. Appellee contends that this result is obviously illogical and incorrect and we agree. To determine when this probation period ended, we must determine when it began. Here, the period of probation began on February 9, 1979, and the defendant was subject to the order from the moment it was imposed. Without a doubt, the probation could have been revoked for a violation which occurred that day. Therefore, each full year of the probationary period ended on the next succeeding February 8, and the three year probation period here ended on February 8, 1982. See Gardner v. State, 412 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
A court may only revoke probation for violations which occur during the term of that probation. Swift v. State, 362 So. 2d 723, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Once a probation term has expired, the court is divested of all jurisdiction over the probationer unless prior to that time the processes of the court have been set in motion for revocation or modification of probation. Kimble v. State, 396 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Bouie v. State, 360 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
The order of dismissal is
AFFIRMED.
COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ricketson v. State, 558 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…entencing within the one cell bump-up bracket. QUASH SENTENCES; REMAND. DANIEL, C.J., and COBB, J., concur. . §§ 810.02(3) and 775.082(3)(d), Fla.Stat. (1981). . Compare Blackburn v. State, 468 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). See State v. Smith, 425 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); White v. State, 410 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Clark v. State, 402 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).…
Authorities Cited
- Gardner v. State, 412 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Bouie v. State, 360 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Kimble v. State, 396 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Maerkle v. State, 362 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Swift v. State, 362 So. 2d 723 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)