MADELYN D. WILLIAMS, 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.
Madelyn Williams appealed her probation revocation and guidelines departure sentence. The District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that although the revocation order cited incorrect violations and lacked a sentencing scoresheet, remand would be futile since Williams had already completed her sentence.
The court affirmed, holding that although the revocation order mistakenly cited violations from the original affidavit for which no proof was offered, and the sentencing lacked a written departure order and scoresheet, remand would be futile because Williams had already completed her sentence.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by granting a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction when the State alleges in a violation of probation warrant that the defendant…
[2] Probation is tolled when a defendant absconds from probationary supervision.
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“when a probationer absconds from supervision, the probationary period is tolled until the probationer is once more placed under probationary supervision”
Establishes that the probationary period is suspended during absconding, tolling the original expiration date
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was originally charged with violation of probation on July 8, 1985, with a probation term set to expire July 8, 1986. On July 12, 1985, she a…
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 Tolling Of Probationary Period cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals her revocation of probation and her guidelines departure sentence. We affirm.
Appellant argues that the revocation of her probation was invalid because there was no evidence presented at the revocation hearing to support the reasons for revocation cited in the order. Although the state agrees, we conclude for the following reasons that we need not reverse or remand for correction of the order of probation.
Appellant was originally charged with violation of probation by an affidavit dated July 8, 1985. Her original term of probation would have expired July 8, 1986. However, on July 12, 1985, appellant absconded from her probationary supervision and did not report her whereabouts again until October 21, 1986. We agree with the first district in Ware v. State, 474 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So. 2d 10 (Fla.1986), that when a probationer absconds from supervision, the probationary period is tolled until the probationer is once more placed under probationary supervision. Upon appellant’s return to supervision, an amended affidavit for violation of probation was filed on October 27, 1986. That amended affidavit charged appellant with, among other things, an unauthorized change of residence and the commission of an aggravated battery. At the revocation hearing, although the state offered no proof on the first affidavit for violation of probation, there was sufficient evidence to find appellant guilty of the charges contained in the amended affidavit. The resulting order of revocation mistakenly found appellant guilty of the charges contained in the original affidavit for which no proof was offered. Appellant has served the sentence imposed on her as a result of the order of revocation. While we could remand for correction of that order to reflect the violations in fact proved, such would be a useless act inasmuch as appellant has completed her sentence. We are not required to do a useless act. Burney v. State, 402 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Likewise, in sentencing appellant to a departure sentence, it does not appear in the record that the trial judge actually received a sentencing guidelines score-sheet. It does appear that the trial judge was advised as to the proper recommended guidelines sentence and chose to depart. See Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Under the facts of this case, the absence of the scoresheet is irrelevant and results in no prejudice to appellant. Rowe v. State, 496 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). While the trial judge announced at the sentencing hearing proper reasons for imposing a departure sentence1, a written order of departure containing those reasons was never entered. Since appellant has served her sentence, a remand for the entry of such a written order would also be a useless act. Burney.
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and SCHEB and LEHAN, JJ., concur. . Multiple violations of probation. See Adams v. State, 490 So. 2d 53 (Fla.1986); Nathan v. State, 489 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 202 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…he controlling arm of the state.”); Kimball v. State, 890 So. 2d 495, 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“[W]hen a probationer absconds from supervision, the probationary period is tolled until the probationer is returned to supervision.”); Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 366, 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (“[W]hen a probationer absconds from supervision, the probationary period is tolled until the probationer is once more placed under probationary supervision.”); Ware v. State, 474 So. 2d 332, 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“[Whenev…
-
Hamilton v. State, 537 So. 2d 194 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…e had a scoresheet before it at the time of sentencing, indicating a presumptive range, we have held in similar circumstances that the failure to prepare a scoresheet and incorporate it in the record is error, albeit harmless. See Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 471 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1985). The more serious deficiency we find, however, is the trial court’s failure to file contemporaneous written reasons supporting departure. The su…
-
Canchola v. State, 255 So. 3d 442 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…gument relating to the application of the tolling provision in the 2015 statute. - 7 - in the case law of "authority for the proposition that probation is automatically tolled during a period when the probationer has absconded"); Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 366, 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (recognizing that a probationary period is tolled when a probationer absconds from supervision); Kimball v. State, 890 So. 2d 495, 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (explaining that "when a probationer absconds from supervision, the pr…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 461 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Adams v. State, 490 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1986)
- Rowe v. State, 496 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Devard B. Burney v. State, 402 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Ware v. State, 474 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Nathan v. State, 489 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)