RONALD A. SPARKS, 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.
Probation revocation affirmed where trial court found competent evidence of violations including unauthorized residence change, failure to report, law violation, and unauthorized withdrawal from therapy, but three unsupported violation findings were struck.
A probation revocation order is affirmed when supported by competent evidence of multiple violations, even though some alleged violations lack evidentiary support and are struck.
[1] Probation revocation findings unsupported by any testimony must be struck from the revocation order, but the revocation is affirmed if other violations are supported by c…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's probation was revoked based on numerous alleged violations including failure to contribute to supervision costs, failure to pay court cost…
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 Competent Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
Appellant’s probation was revoked on the basis of numerous alleged violations. Appellant maintains, and the state concedes, that no testimony was presented to support the allegations that appellant violated condition (11) of his probation by failing to contribute toward the cost of supervision, condition (14) by failing to pay court costs, and condition (15) by failing to make restitution. Consequently, we strike from the order revoking probation the findings that appellant violated the aforementioned conditions of probation.
Appellant’s other argument is without merit.
There was competent evidence to support the findings of the trial court that appellant violated probation by changing his residence without the consent or knowledge of his probation officer, failing to report to his probation officer in July and August, 1980, violating the law, and withdrawing from an alcoholic therapy program without the approval of his probation officer. The record makes clear that the lower court was prepared to revoke appellant’s probation for these violations alone. See Sillett v. State, 393 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Therefore, as amended, we affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
MAY v. State, 472 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…oregoing was the sole basis for revoking the defendant’s probation, the written order of revocation lists four additional grounds. Since these were not relied upon by the trial court, we strike them from the order of revocation. See Sparks v. State, 453 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). And, as amended, we affirm. Affirmed. HURLEY and BARKETT, JJ., and WES-SEL, JOHN D., Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Kane v. State, 473 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…ily concerned with appellant’s failure to pay the mandated costs, and it appears that appellant’s probation would have been revoked for this violation alone, the improper findings do not require reversal of the revocation order. See Sparks v. State, 453 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Therefore, as amended, we hereby affirm the order appealed. SHIVERS and NIMMONS, JJ., concur.…
-
Evins v. State, 690 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…charged, see e.g., Gavins v. State, 587 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Jackson v. State, 546 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); McPherson v. State, 530 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); May v. State, 472 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Sparks v. State, 453 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), it is unclear from this record whether or not the battery charge was the primary consideration in revoking probation. And although it appears that the battery may not have been scored or otherwise considered in determining the le…
Authorities Cited
- Sillett v. State, 393 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)