GERALD DONLEY, 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.
Gerald Donley challenged his probation revocation and sentencing in seven circuit court cases, arguing he was denied a proper hearing and that improper orders were entered. The court held that while the revocation hearing itself was proper, the trial court failed to enter formal orders specifying which probation conditions were violated.
The court held that Donley received a proper probation revocation hearing because he was advised of charges, evidence was presented, and he had an opportunity to present his position through counsel. However, the court erred by failing to enter formal orders specifically setting forth which conditions were violated, as required by statute and case law.
[1] A probation revocation hearing is sufficient if the probationer is advised of the charges, evidence is presented, and the probationer has an opportunity to present their…
[2] A probationer's attorney may admit to probation violations on behalf of the probationer.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“At a probation revocation hearing, the court must advise the probationer of the charges, and then if admitted, the court may revoke the probation.”
Establishes the minimal procedural requirements for a valid probation revocation hearing under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonley was on probation in seven different cases and was charged with violating probation conditions, specifically: leaving the county without consent…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Gerald Donley, challenges the judgments and sentences entered in seven circuit court cases on the grounds that he was not given a proper probation revocation hearing. He also contends that the trial court erred by not entering proper orders revoking his probation. We agree that the court did not enter proper orders revoking the appellant’s probation, but affirm in all other respects.
The appellant, while on probation in connection with seven different cases, was charged with violating four of the conditions of his probation. At the appellant’s probation revocation hearing, the state elected to proceed on the basis that the appellant had violated condition three of his probation by leaving the county of his residence without consent, by changing his residence without consent, and by failing to notify his probation officer of his whereabouts. The state also contended that the appellant had not filed his monthly reports. The appellant’s attorney announced that the appellant was admitting those charges and that the state had agreed to a maximum sentence of four years. He then proceeded to question the appellant concerning mitigation of the sentence. During this questioning, the appellant admitted violating the terms and conditions of his probation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the appellant violated his probation, and he was subsequently sentenced to four years in prison. This timely appeal followed.
We find no merit in the appellant’s contention that he was not given a proper probation revocation hearing. At a probation revocation hearing, the court must advise the probationer of the charges, and then if admitted, the court may revoke the probation. § 948.06(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). A probation revocation hearing does not have to meet the strict requirements of a criminal trial. It is sufficient if the appellant is advised of the charges, evidence is presented, and the probationer has an opportunity to present his position. See Washington v. State, 284 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); McNeely v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). In this case, the appellant was represented by counsel, who admitted the charges, and represented to the court that the state had offered a maximum sentence of four years if the appellant admitted that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The appellant was allowed to state his position, and in seeking mitigation he also admitted violating condition three of his probation. Washington; McNeely. See also Leonard v. State, 391 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
We agree, however, with the appellant’s contention that the court erred by not entering proper orders finding that the appellant had violated probation. The record contains forms entitled “Memo of Sentence of the Court” and uniform sentencing orders in connection with each of the seven cases. Neither the forms nor the sentencing orders are sufficient. When a court finds that a probationer has violated his probation, it must enter a formal order setting forth the conditions that it finds were violated. Cornett v. State, 506 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). See also Smith v. State, 492 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We, accordingly, remand with directions to enter proper probation violation orders. The appellant need not be present for this purpose. We affirm in all other respects.
Affirmed, but remanded with instructions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (36 total)
-
McCLOUD v. State, 653 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…); Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183, 185 & n. 3 (Fla.1978); Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490, 498-99 (Fla.1974). See generally Batten v. State, 589 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Brewer v. State, 583 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In accordance with Black v. Romano, we remand this case for entry of the required written statement. If, after entry of the written statement, the defendant contends that any of the grounds relied on by the trial court are…
-
Woods v. State, 987 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Braswell v. State, 804 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). . This practice contradicts Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986(a), which requires the use of standard forms for judgments and sentences "by all courts.” . Irrespective of the direct criminal contempt proceedings, the seem…
-
Haynes v. State, 571 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…rder setting forth the conditions that were violated. We, accordingly, must remand for the entry of a proper order setting forth the conditions of community control which the state proved were violated, i.e. conditions (9) and (11). Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Although we do not agree with the appellant’s contention that his community control was improperly revoked, we do agree that the trial court erred in sentencing him. In preparing the guidelines score-sheet, the trial court impro…
Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNEELY v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Smith v. State, 284 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)
- Cornett v. State, 506 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Leonard v. State, 391 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Smith v. State, 492 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Koch v. Berkey Film Processing, 492 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)