WILLIAM J. SECURE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation based on proven violations (rock-throwing and battery) but struck unprovable findings and remanded for resentencing because the trial judge's sentence may have been influenced by the improper findings.
A trial court may revoke probation based on violations it can prove, but must strike findings of violations neither relied upon nor proved by the state, and must be resentenced if the original sentence may have been influenced by improper findings.
[1] A probation revocation order must be struck of any findings of violations that were neither relied upon nor proved by the state at the violation hearing.
[2] When a probation revocation order contains improper findings that may have influenced sentencing, the case must be remanded for resentencing to determine whether the tria…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSecure pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy and possession charges in 1979, received probation without adjudication of guilt, and was charged with probat…
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 Sentencing Considerations cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, William J. Secure, was charged by information in 1979 with conspiracy to sell a controlled substance and sale and possession of such substance. A negotiated plea of guilty was entered into on the charges. The trial court found appellant guilty, but withheld adjudication of guilt and placed him on probation for a period of five years.
In 1981 an affidavit of violation was filed, charging appellant with violating certain conditions of his probation. A hearing was held on the alleged violations and upon the testimony and evidence introduced, the appellant was found guilty of throwing a rock at the windshield of an automobile occupied by his ex-wife, and of two charges of battery upon his ex-wife. The order of revocation went further and found appellant guilty of certain other violations of probation which were neither relied upon nor proved by the state.
We affirm the trial court’s order revoking probation upon its findings that appellant threw a rock at the windshield of an automobile occupied by his ex-wife and that he was guilty of two charges of battery upon his ex-wife.
The findings of other violations of probation recited in the order appealed are stricken.
Since it is not clear whether the trial judge would have imposed the same sentence in the absence of the improper findings, the cause is remanded for further consideration of the sentence.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thompson v. State, 208 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…al, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, as it is unclear from the record whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentence on the remaining violations. See Gray v. State, 170 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Secure v. State, 432 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Id. (emphasis added). A. August, 26, 2015, hearing — Thompson resentenced in absentia and without counsel prior to this Court’s mandate Prior to the issuance of this Court’s mandate, the trial court held a hearing on [*1186] A…
-
Thompson v. State, 172 So. 3d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…l, we vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing, as it is unclear from the record whether the trial. court would have imposed the same sentence on the remaining violations. See Gray v. State, 170 So. 3d 890 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Secure v. State, 432 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). ■ Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.…
-
Mack v. State, 440 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…he trial judge would have imposed the same sentence had he not considered appellant’s failure to pay the costs [*603] of supervision, we reverse the sentence and remand for resentencing without taking this factor into consideration. Secure v. State, 432 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded for resentencing.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence