DONNELL P. HOWARD, 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.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove a violation of probation for burglary and theft.
Donnell Howard was found to have violated probation based on alleged burglary and theft from a motel. A witness saw two men stealing items, and police…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Donnell Howard appeals a split sentence of prison and probation imposed after the trial court found that Howard had violated the conditions of a 1986 probationary term. We agree that the evidence was insufficient to prove a violation of probation, and reverse.
The specific violation ascribed to Howard was the burglary of a Tampa Ramada Inn and the theft of various items. Ann Bon-nett, a “night auditor,” observed two men removing property from the second floor of the motel. She called police, who arrived just as a vehicle containing the two men was leaving the parking lot. The car was stopped, and was found to contain items that had been taken from the motel. Three of its occupants fled at the approach of police; Howard, a passenger in the back seat, did not. Ms. Bonnett could not identify Howard as one of the two thieves she had observed earlier. Anthony Davis, a defense witness, admitted participating in the theft, but stated that Howard was not involved. Davis testified that he had “picked up” Howard in his car and that Howard did not know what was going on.
On appeal the state suggests that Anthony Davis’s “exculpatory” testimony, which the trial court obviously rejected, was unworthy of belief. It is axiomatic that the trier of fact is free to disbelieve the testimony of a witness who has been impeached or discredited. See, e.g., Sumpter v. State, 45 Fla. 106, 33 So. 981 (1903). It is another matter to suggest that this same testimony may somehow resurface as proof of guilt. Even disregarding Davis’s testimony we are left with proof, at best, that Howard was present while a crime was being committed. This is insufficient to prove him guilty of active participation in that crime. Cf. Swift v. State, 473 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Reversed with directions to vacate the present split sentence and restore Howard to the original terms and conditions of probation.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and HALL and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thurner v. Cheri J. Thurner, 584 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…y to pay, and that the court awarded attorneys’ fees in excess of the fee agreement reached by the attorney and wife. From the meager record, there appears to be enough to make a finding of husband’s ability to pay and the wife’s need. Lohr v. Lohr, 552 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). However, no such finding was made by the trial court. It is error to award attorneys’ fees in excess of the fee agreement reached by the attorney and client where there has been no showing that the client was required to fee barg…
Authorities Cited
- Stephens v. State, 45 Fla. 106 (Fla. 1903)
- Swift v. State, 473 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)