FREDDIE J. JAMES, 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.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the appellant violated probation by possessing burglary tools, but affirmed the revocation for unemployment compensation fraud and loitering/prowling.
Appellant's probation was revoked based on findings of unemployment compensation fraud, possessing burglary tools, and loitering/prowling. The appella…
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 Loitering And Prowling cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation and the imposition of judgment and sentence on the underlying offense of unemployment compensation fraud. We agree, however, with appellant’s assertion that the evidence presented at his revocation hearing was insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he violated his probation by possessing burglary tools. See Preston v. State, 373 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (when alleged burglary too, is a common household item or an implement of ordinary and everyday use, state must present evidence of item’s actual use in burglary or attempted burglary to establish requisite criminal intent.) Accord Frame v. State, 388 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (slide hammer and bolt cutters were innocent items which would not support finding of guilt absent evidence of use in burglary or attempted burglary). The record before us contains no evidence that appellant used the bolt cutters in his possession for any unlawful purpose.
We reject appellant’s contention that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of violation for loitering and prowling. Conversely, we deem the evidence sufficient to have satisfied the trial court’s conscience that appellant committed the violation charged. See Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So. 2d 607 (1947); Brown v. State, 429 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (revocation justified if evidence is sufficient to satisfy conscience of court that condition of probation has been violated).
Accordingly, we strike that part of the order of revocation finding that appellant violated his probation by possessing burglary tools. We affirm the judgment and sentence in all other respects.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 531 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 1988)…committing the trespass or burglary, but need only manifest the specific criminal intent. We recognize that many cases have attempted to apply the distinction drawn in Foster. E.g., State v. Thomas, 362 So. 2d 1348 (Fla.1978); K.W.; James v. State, 452 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hubbell v. State, 446 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA), petition for review denied, 453 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1984); Frame v. State, 388 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA), dismissed, 394 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.1980); Preston; Crosby v. State, 352 So. 2d 124…1 / 2
-
K.W. v. State, 468 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1203 (Fla.1980), in such instances it is necessary for the state to present evidence of an item’s actual use in burglary or attempted burglary to establish the requisite criminal intent. See also James v. State, 452 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Hubbell v. State, 446 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 5th DCA), petition for review denied, 453 So. 2d 44 (Fla.1984); Frame v. State, 388 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA), appeal dismissed, 394 So. 2d 1152 (Fla.1980); Crosby v. State, 352 So. 2d 1247…
-
Waring v. State, 504 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…e stolen meat. The confession, in itself, is sufficient for revocation of probation purposes. The level of evidence required to support a revocation of probation does not call for evidence sufficient to support a criminal conviction. James v. State, 452 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.2d DCA 1984), State ex rel. Russell v. McGlothin, 427 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). We strike the invalid reasons for revocation of appellant’s probation and affirm the trial court’s order. See Smith v. State, 380 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1…
Authorities Cited
- Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 (Fla. 1947)
- Gonzalez v. State, 159 Fla. 681 (Fla. 1947)
- Brown v. State, 429 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Dogan Inanc, M.D. v. Schreckengost, 373 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Preston v. State, 373 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Frame v. State, 388 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)