TED RICHARD DANEK, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the defendant violated his probation by possessing a stolen motor vehicle.
The defendant was charged with violating probation by possessing a stolen motor vehicle. The rental agreement for the vehicle had expired, and the def…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ted Danek appeals the revocation of his probation and the judgment and sentence entered thereon. For the reasons which follow we reverse.
Danek was charged with violating his probation in that he violated section 812.-014(2)(b)(4), Florida Statutes (1981) (the Florida grand theft statute), by being in possession of a stolen motor vehicle.
A rental agreement for the vehicle with the Hertz Corporation had expired three weeks prior to Danek’s arrest. It is undisputed that Danek’s only connection with the vehicle was his presence as a passenger. The state concedes that Danek did not participate in obtaining the vehicle from Hertz. There is utterly no evidence linking Danek to a grand theft of the vehicle in question.
We accordingly reverse the finding of violation of probation. See Coley v. State, 393 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Hodges v. State, 370 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Franklin v. State, 345 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Our reversal is without prejudice to the state to file an affidavit of violation of probation on charges which it asserts exist but are unrelated to this appeal.
Reversed and remanded with directions to reinstate the defendant to his prior probation status.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 982 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…retta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525. As such, when a defendant unequivocally demands to represent himself, an inquiry must be made to determine whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waives his constitutional right. See Kimble v. State, 429 So. 2d 1369,1371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). When conducting a Faretta inquiry, the “trial court should inquire into, among other things: defendant’s age, mental status, and lack of knowledge and experience in criminal proceedings.” Johnston v. State, 497 So. 2d 863,…
-
Lyons v. State, 437 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…v. State, 167 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964); Cappetta v. State, 204 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th [*712] DCA 1967), rev’d. on other grounds, 216 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1968). He contends that there is no credible distinction between his case and Kimble v. State, 429 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); and Martin v. State, 434 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In Kimble, the defendant made his request “toward the end of the jury selection process.” The Third District Court reversed his conviction because the trial court had deni…
-
A.T. v. State, 448 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…o. 2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Brown v. State, 413 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Sections 90.801, 90.-803 and 90.806 Florida Statutes (1983). However, we find the evidence that the appellant was guilty of theft to be insufficient. Danek v. State, 429 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); B.L.W. v. State, 393 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 3 DCA 1981). Therefore for the reasons above stated the adjudication of delinquency under review be and the same is hereby reversed with directions to discharge the appellant. Reversed and…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hodges v. State, 370 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Coley v. State, 393 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Franklin v. State, 345 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)