MICHAEL IACONO, 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 while the trial court erred in including certain grounds for probation revocation, the remaining grounds were substantial, thus affirming the revocation order as modified.
Appellant's probation was revoked by the trial court. The appellate court reviewed the grounds for revocation, finding some to be improperly included.…
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 Affidavit Of Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order revoking appellant’s probation is affirmed with modifications.
We affirm the trial court’s finding of competency on the authority of Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla.1971); Brock v. State, 69 So. 2d 344, 346 (Fla.1954); and Pressley v. State, 261 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972).
The trial court erred by including in its order, as grounds for revocation of probation, the following: that the defendant committed the offense of kidnapping and that he failed to submit monthly reports for February 1981 through January 1982; Willis v. State, 446 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Clark v. State, 442 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Mack v. State, 342 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (cannot revoke probation based on facts not alleged on the affidavit of violation); that the defendant failed to make cost supervision payments; Pope v. State, 444 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) and cases cited therein (cannot revoke probation without a demonstration and finding of financial ability to pay); that the defendant changed his residence without the consent of his probation supervisor and failed to work diligently at a lawful occupation; Delgado v. State, 423 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (the grounds for revocation must be supported by the evidence).
These grounds are stricken from the order. Since the remaining grounds for revocation are substantial, including the commission of new substantive offenses, the order of revocation is affirmed as modified. See Aaron v. State, 400 So. 2d 1033, 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981) and cases cited therein.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971)
- Brock v. State, 69 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1954)
- Aaron v. State, 400 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Pressley v. State, 261 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)
- Mack v. State, 342 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Delgado v. State, 423 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Clark v. State, 442 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Pope v. State, 444 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Frank Arena & Ruth Arena v. United Artists Theatre Cir., Inc., 444 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Ezra Lee Willis v. State, 446 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)