ELADIO MORALES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
That part of the Order of Revocation of Probation which finds that the appellant, Eladio Morales, failed
“to comply with all the instructions of his Probation Supervisor, in that, on 07-22-86 the Probationer was instructed by his Probation Supervisor to set an appointment at Miami Mental Health Center for Alcohol and Drug Counseling, and as of September 5, 1986, he has failed to do so”
is stricken upon a holding that this condition — that Morales set up an appointment for alcohol and drug counseling — cannot be considered one imposed by the court by virtue of the court’s general admonition that Morales comply with all instructions of the probation officer, Hutchinson v. State, 428 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Holterhaus v. State, 417 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and such condition being therefore imposed by the probation officer only, the violation of it cannot serve as a basis for the revocation of probation. Hutchinson v. State, 428 So. 2d 739; Holterhaus v. State, 417 So. 2d 291; see Barber v. State, 344 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). In all other respects the order under review is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Odom v. State, 15 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…he probation officer. Appellant was not sure whether he had informed Officer Snowden about leaving messages for her. He “figured” that she had gotten the messages. Citing Hutchinson v. State, 428 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and Morales v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), Appellant contends that the requirement for him to report to his probation office sometime between the first and fifth day of each month is a new, special condition that his probation supervisor, and not the sentencing court or C…
-
In the Interest of F.R., 539 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…y v. State, 484 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 492 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 1986). It should be further noted that the Richardson rule is applicable to juvenile proceedings. See, e.g., State v. R.R., 502 So. 2d 1244 (Fla.1987), and S.G. v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The lower court also erred in finding the appellant guilty of grand theft. Section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1987), provides that theft of property valued between $300.00 and $20,000.00 is grand theft, a felony in the third deg…
-
Kiess v. State, 642 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…icer. Violation of a condition which is imposed by a probation officer, rather than an express condition of the trial court, cannot serve as a basis for revocation of probation. Ashrafi v. State, 534 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Morales v. State, 518 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Although the trial court could not find a violation of probation based solely on either contact with his stepchildren or the hearsay account of the physical contact incident, the single violation established of battery on a law…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Denver Jesse Hutchinson v. State, 428 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Holterhaus v. State, 417 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Barber v. State, 344 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)