CHRISTOPHER SHAUN KIRKLAND
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision to revoke probation. The appellant argued he could not violate probation while incarcerated before it began, but the court held that misconduct demonstrating unfitness for probation can lead to revocation even before probation commences.
Yes, a defendant's probation may be revoked prior to its commencement if they commit an act of misconduct that demonstrates their unfitness for probation.
[1] Probation may be revoked for misconduct occurring before the probationary period commences if the defendant demonstrates unfitness for probation by willfully and substant…
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 intelligence“A defendant’s probation may be revoked prior to the commencement of probation if he commits an act of misconduct that demonstrates his unfitness for probation.”
This quote establishes the legal principle that allows for revocation of probation before it officially begins.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was sentenced to incarceration followed by probation, with a condition of no contact with the victim. While incarcerated and before his prob…
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 Aggravated Stalking cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the judgment and sentence entered after he admitted to violating probation. His appellate counsel filed an initial brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Appellant filed a pro se brief arguing he could not have violated probation because he was incarcerated and the probationary period had not begun. We disagree. A defendant’s probation may be revoked prior to the commencement of probation if he commits an act of misconduct that demonstrates his unfitness for probation. Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385, 386 (Fla. 1984). Here, Appellant was convicted of written threats to kill or do bodily injury and aggravated stalking. The trial court sentenced him to twelve years’ incarceration
followed by eight years’ probation. Appellant was ordered to have no contact with the victim. The order of probation included a special condition of no contact with the victim and a condition requiring Appellant to live without violating any law. The victim had obtained an injunction for protection against domestic violence and a no contact order against Appellant, and Appellant was notified at sentencing that contact with the victim while serving the prison sentence would violate his probation. Nevertheless, during a fourteen-month period beginning several months after sentencing, Appellant sent the victim approximately seventy-five letters while he was incarcerated. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in revoking Appellant’s probation upon finding Appellant willfully and substantially violated conditions of his probation. Id. (“[T]he court can revoke an order of probation, the term of which has not yet commenced, should the court determine that the defendant probationer has been guilty of misconduct occurring subsequent to the entry of the order of probation.”) (quoting Martin v. State, 243 So. 2d 189, 190—91 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)). AFFIRMED. B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and M.K. Thomas, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Shadrick A. Martin, Jr. v. State, 243 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Vendul Oliver Stafford v. State, 455 So. 2d 385 (Fla. 1984)