JAMES COLLINS, 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.
James Collins appealed the revocation of his probation, challenging the sufficiency of evidence supporting the violations found. The appellate court modified the trial court's findings by striking several unsupported violations but affirmed the revocation based on sufficient evidence of substantive violations including burglary of a conveyance and petit theft.
The appellate court affirmed the revocation of probation because there was sufficient evidence that Collins violated substantive conditions, specifically committing burglary of a conveyance and petit theft. However, the court struck findings regarding failure to pay supervision costs, possession of burglary tools, and possession of marijuana as unsupported by sufficient evidence, and amended the grand theft finding to petit theft.
[1] A trial court may revoke probation based on sufficient evidence of violation of substantive conditions, even if some alleged violations are not proven.
[2] A finding of grand theft may be amended to petit theft if the value of the stolen property is not proven, but other evidence supports a theft conviction.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While recognizing the relaxed standards of proof and the informal nature of a revocation hearing, Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the state nevertheless concedes that the evidence was insufficient to show that defendant failed to pay his supervision costs and committed the offense of grand theft and possession of burglary tools.”
Establishes the standard of proof in probation revocation cases while demonstrating that the state conceded certain findings lacked evidentiary support.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCollins pleaded guilty to burglary of a conveyance and possession of cocaine in June 1982 and was placed on concurrent five-year probation terms. In A…
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 Technical Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Defendant James Collins attacks the trial court’s orders revoking his probation on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to show that he violated the substantial conditions of his probation. We modify the trial court’s findings but otherwise affirm.
In June 1982 the state charged Collins with burglary of a conveyance and'possession of cocaine. After pleading guilty to both charges, he was placed on concurrent five-year terms of probation. Subsequently, on August 3, 1983, affidavits were filed charging Collins with several violations of his probation. Specifically, he was charged with: (1) submitting late monthly reports; (2) failure to pay his costs of supervision; and (3) failing to live and remain at liberty without violating any law by having committed the offenses of (a) burglary of a conveyance; (b) grand theft; (c) possession of burglary tools; and (d) possession of marijuana. After a hearing, the trial court found that defendant had committed each of the violations charged and entered orders of revocation of probation. Collins was sentenced to five years imprisonment on the original burglary charge and two years on possession of cocaine, with the sentences to run consecutively.
Defendant admits that he did not file timely monthly reports; yet, because he views this as a technical violation of probation, he contends that it is unclear whether the trial court would have revoked probation solely on that ground. He submits that we should remand his ease to afford the trial court an opportunity to determine if his probation would have been revoked solely on that ground. See Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). However, we find no reason to do that, because we conclude there was sufficient evidence that defendant violated some substantive conditions of his probation, and accordingly, we affirm the orders of revocation of probation.
While recognizing the relaxed standards of proof and the informal nature of a revocation hearing, Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), the state nevertheless concedes that the evidence was insufficient to show that defendant failed to pay his supervision costs and committed the offense of grand theft and possession of burglary tools. Therefore, those findings must be stricken from the orders of revocation of probation. Additionally, the finding of possession of marijuana was improper inasmuch as the trial court had already directed that charge to be stricken from the warrant.
We conclude there was sufficient evidence before the court that defendant committed the offense of burglary of a conveyance. There was also sufficient evidence that defendant was guilty of petit theft, and, while the finding of grand theft was improper because the state did not prove the value of the property stolen, that does not preclude a finding of petit theft. See Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
We have considered defendant’s other point on appeal and find it to be without merit.
Accordingly, we strike the court’s findings concerning defendant’s failure to pay costs, possession of burglary tools, and possession of marijuana. We amend the finding that defendant committed grand theft to read that he committed petit theft. We otherwise affirm the orders of revocation of probation.
DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 48 So. 3d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…oting Kaduk v. State, 959 So. 2d 817, 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). Recognizing the relaxed standards of a revocation hearing, there must still be sufficient evidence to show that a probationer committed the offense charged. See, e.g., Collins v. State, 446 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (in revocation proceedings, a finding of grand theft was improper because the state did not prove the value of the property stolen, but a finding of petit theft was not precluded). Davis argues that the state failed to refute his…
-
Duquesne v. State, 242 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…d to introduce any evidence as to the value of the stolen cell phone, we remand for entry and correction of an order reflecting that the defendant violated his probation by committing a petit theft in case number F16-17696. See Collins v. State, 446 So. 2d 268, 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Lastly, the defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the defendant violated Special Condition (18) by failing to enter and complete the CORP Program. We agree. During the probation v…
-
H.F. v. State, 927 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…uilty on both charges. H.F. now appeals both judgments. Turning first to the petit theft, we determine that there was sufficient competent substantial evidence to support the petit theft, and therefore, we affirm the judgment. See Collins v. State, 446 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Turning next to the criminal mischief judgment, it is a necessary element of the crime of criminal mischief, that the defendant willfully and maliciously injures or damage real or personal property belonging to another. § 806.13…
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
- Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Weatherspoon v. State, 419 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)