ARTHUR LEE UNDERWOOD, 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.
Arthur Underwood appeals the revocation of his probation on two cases. The trial court revoked his probation based on alleged violations of multiple conditions, but the state only proved one violation (robbery). The appellate court affirmed the revocation but remanded to strike unsupported findings.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation because the single proven violation (the robbery) was substantial enough to warrant revocation. However, the court remanded to require the trial court to strike from the revocation order all findings regarding violations of conditions (1) and (2) and other alleged violations of condition (5) that were not proven or admitted, as well as language erroneously indicating guilty pleas to unproven violations.
[1] A single proven violation of probation is sufficient to warrant revocation, even if other alleged violations are not proven or admitted.
[2] A trial court may revoke probation for misconduct that occurs before the probation term has officially commenced.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Although the trial court lacked any basis upon which to find that Underwood had committed any violations of probation other than the violation of condition (5) by robbing Mr. Johnson, this single violation was substantial enough, by itself, to warrant revocation.”
Establishes that one proven probation violation is sufficient to justify revocation, even if other alleged violations are unfounded.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUnderwood was placed on concurrent five-year probation in April 1979 for case 79-377, and subsequently on five-year probation for case 80-5806 to run …
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 Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Arthur Underwood appeals two final orders of judgment and sentence imposed against him for circuit court case numbers 79-377 and 80-5806 following entry of an order revoking his probation orders for those two cases. We affirm and remand.
On April 5, 1979, the trial court placed Underwood on concurrent five-year terms of probation for case number 79-377. The next year the court placed him on a five-year term of probation for case number 80-5806, the term to run consecutive to the concurrent terms for case number 79-377.
In 1982, the trial court conducted a hearing regarding alleged violations of conditions (1), (2) and (5) of the two probation orders. The state produced evidence sufficient to establish only that, by robbing one James Johnson, Underwood violated condition (5) requiring that he remain at liberty without violating the law. It did not present any evidence with respect to either the purported violations of conditions (1) and (2) or other alleged violations of condition (5). Furthermore, Underwood did not admit committing any of the alleged violations. Nevertheless, in revoking both probation orders, the court found that he had committed all of the alleged violations of conditions (1), (2) and (5).
Although the trial court lacked any basis upon which to find that Underwood had committed any violations of probation other than the violation of condition (5) by robbing Mr. Johnson, this single violation was substantial enough, by itself, to warrant revocation. Cf. Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969).
Hence, we affirm the probation revocation order revoking Underwood’s probation for case numbers 79-377 and 80--5806,1 and the corresponding final orders of judgment and sentence. However, we remand to the trial court with directions that it strike from the probation revocation order the parts which read that he committed the alleged violations which were neither proven by the state nor admitted by Underwood. See, e.g., Paul v. State, 421 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Davis v. State, 411 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Robinson v. State, 366 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We also instruct the court on remand to strike the parts which erroneously indicate that Underwood pled guilty to those alleged violations.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur. . With respect to case No. 80-5806, even though the misconduct for which the trial court revoked Underwood’s probation transpired prior to April 4, 1984, i.e., before the date his consecutive term of probation for that case commenced, the trial court did not err in revoking his probation for that case. The Supreme Court of Florida decided during pendency of the instant appeal that a defendant may have his probation revoked for misconduct which occurs before the term of probation has started. Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Drayton v. State, 490 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…A 1979); Shaw. Finally, we find the trial court erred in entering a written order indicating that appellant had pled guilty to the violations and that his probation had been revoked on the additional violations of condition (5). Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Sing Eng v. State, 350 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). In view of our disposition of the case, however, it is not necessary for us to order those findings stricken from the order of revocation. We, accordingly, reverse and remand…
-
Harding v. State, 481 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…tate, 429 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, the order revoking probation incorrectly states that defendant pleaded guilty to the violation of probation. This should be corrected to show the defendant pleaded “not guilty.” Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We therefore remand for the foregoing correction. CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and LEHAN and HALL, JJ., concur.…
-
Hinton v. State, 462 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…cause he had not yet been placed on probation at the time of the alleged violation. This court has recently held that a defendant’s probation may be revoked for a violation occurring before the term of the probation has started. Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). In Underwood, we were following the supreme court’s recent decision in Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385 (Fla.1984), which approved the holding in Martin v. State, 243 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 247 So. 2d 63 (Fla.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Vendul Oliver Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1984)
- Gean Claude Paul v. State, 421 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Robinson v. State, 366 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Cullen Davis v. State, 411 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)