ROBERT JAMES FRYSON, 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.
Robert Fryson appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation, challenging the court's jurisdiction and the legality of the probation term that followed community control. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirms the revocation, holding that jurisdiction was proper because the arrest warrant was signed before probation expired, even though the affidavit was filed afterward.
The court affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction to revoke probation and its denial of Fryson's motion to dismiss. The court held that jurisdiction is established when the processes of revocation are set in motion prior to expiration of probation (here, by signing the arrest warrant before March 9, 1989), regardless of when the affidavit is filed. The court also affirmed the legality of the original 1987 sentence imposing community control followed by probation.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to revoke probation if the processes for revocation have been set in motion prior to the expiration of the probationary period, even if…
[2] The signing and issuance of an arrest warrant based on an affidavit of probation violation, occurring before the probation term expires, constitutes setting the revocatio…
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“It is clear that upon expiration of the probationary period the court is divested of all jurisdiction over the person of the probationer unless in the meantime the processes of the court have been set in motion for revocation or modification of the probation.”
Establishes the foundational rule that jurisdiction over a probationer is lost upon expiration of probation unless revocation proceedings are initiated before that date.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFryson was sentenced on March 10, 1987 to six months probation for cannabis possession followed by 18 months probation for possession with intent to s…
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 Jurisdiction To Revoke Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Appellant/defendant appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation, raising two issues: (1) that the trial court was without jurisdiction to order revocation, and (2) that the probation which the trial court revoked illegally followed a term of community control. We affirm on both points.
The record on appeal indicates that appellant was sentenced on March 10, 1987 to six months probation for possession of more than 20 grams of cannabis, to be followed by 18 months probation for possession of cannabis with intent to sell or deliver. On March 8, 1989, an affidavit was filed by appellant’s probation officer, alleging that appellant had violated his probation by failing to file reports and failing to complete a drug abuse program. On March 9, 1989 (the last day of appellant’s term of probation), the trial court signed an arrest warrant based on the March 8, 1989 affidavit. Appellant was not arrested until July 1, 1989, however, and the date stamp on the affidavit of violation of probation indicates that it was not filed with the circuit court until November 21, 1989.
A violation of probation hearing was conducted on October 12, 1989, during which appellant moved to dismiss the proceedings on the grounds that the affidavit was not timely filed within his term of probation. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the warrant was signed and issued prior to the expiration of probation. Appellant was adjudicated guilty of violation of probation and sentenced to three and one-half years incarceration. We affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to dismiss the violation of probation proceedings.
The general rule regarding timeliness of probation revocation proceedings was set out by this court in State ex rel. Ard v. Shelby, 97 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957), as follows:
It is clear that upon expiration of the probationary period the court is divested of all jurisdiction over the person of the probationer unless in the meantime the processes of the court have been set in motion for revocation or modification of the probation....
97 So. 2d at 632 (emphasis supplied). See also Gardner v. State, 412 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Clark v. State, 402 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Carpenter v. State, 355 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Bass v. State, 473 So. 2d 1367, 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“[pjroceedings to revoke probation must be commenced prior to the expiration of probation.” (e.s.)) Although the affidavit of violation in the instant case was not filed until after appellant’s term of probation had ended, it is clear that the action which set the revocation processes in motion — i.e., the signing of the affidavit of violation and the issuance of an arrest warrant based on the affidavit — took place pri-or to the expiration of probation.
We affirm the second issue as well, since a direct appeal of appellant’s 1987 sentence is clearly untimely at this point. In any event, it is clear that the 1987 sentence of community control followed by probation was not improper. See Ray v. State, 556 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), approving the imposition of probation followed by community control, and Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), withdrawing this court’s earlier opinion in Denson v. State, 14 F.L.W. 2053 (Fla. 1st DCA September 1, 1989) and affirming orders placing the appellant on community control followed by probation.
WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyd v. State, 699 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…court concluded that “the processes of the trial court had been set in motion, for the warrant for petitioner’s arrest because of his violation of probation was issued within the period of probation.” Id. at 301. More recently, in Fryson v. State, 559 So. 2d 377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), this court applied the foregoing language from Ard, which it referred to as “[t]he general rule regarding timeliness of probation revocation proceedings.” Id. at 378. In Fryson, we rejected the appellant’s argument that the tria…1 / 3
-
Long v. State, 886 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…d in the Affidavit of Violation and for which appellant had already served his sentence. Clearly, this was error which must be remedied upon remand by resentencing appellant only on the count for which he was still on probation. Cf. Fryson v. State, 559 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (citations omitted). Appellant’s second issue on appeal is that the trial court’s written order revoking his probation is legally deficient because it failed to state the conditions of probation that appellant had violated…
-
Francois v. State, 676 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ation, that is sufficient to vest the court with jurisdiction to adjudicate the violation even though the [*1043] probationary period expires before the revocation hearing is held. Carroll v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla.1962); Fryson v. State, 559 So. 2d 377, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Even though the revocation hearing is held after expiration of the probationary period, the order of revocation is in substance deemed to relate back to the date of initiation of the revocation process. . Where a defendant…
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
- State of Fla. ex rel. Fritz ARD v. Emmett Shelby, 97 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Clark v. State, 402 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Gardner v. State, 412 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Bass v. State, 473 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Denson v. State, 556 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- White v. State, 355 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Carpenter v. State, 355 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Hodges v. Ronald C. Yarbrough, PH.D., P.A., 556 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)