FREDERICK ROFF, 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 trial court did not err in revoking probation and that appellant is not entitled to gain-time credit for the period before his probation began, pursuant to statute.
[1] A mislabeled violation does not invalidate probation revocation if the defendant had actual notice of the violation's specifics and testified regarding the subject matter…
[2] Failure to follow supervisory instructions from a probation officer is a proper ground for revocation of probation.
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's probation was revoked for three violations. Appellant also sought credit for gain-time earned on earlier incarceration for the same offens…
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 Gain Time Credit cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s revocation of appellant’s probation for all three of the alleged violations. Although the third amended violation, L4, was mislabeled L5, appellant clearly had notice of the specifics of the violation and testified as to the L4 subject matter. Moreover, his failure to follow supervisory instructions given by his probation officer was a proper ground for revocation of probation. Goley v. State, 584 So. 2d 139, 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Haynes v. State, 440 So. 2d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Grimsley v. State, 408 So. 2d 1075, 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Appellant further contends the trial court erred in denying appellant credit for gain-time earned on the earlier incarceration for the same offense. Appellee agrees the trial court erred. However, both parties have misplaced their reliance on obsolete authority.
The supreme court explained in Bradley v. State, 631 So. 2d 1096 (Fla.1994), that State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla.1989), and Barfield v. State, 599 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), have been superseded by section 948.06(6), Florida Statutes (1989). Chapter 89-531, Laws of Florida, added as subsection 6:
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, whenever probation or community control is revoked, the offender, by reason of his misconduct, may be deemed to have forfeited all gain-time or commutation of time for good conduct, as provided by law, earned up to the date of his release on probation or community control from a state correctional institution. This subsection does not deprive the prisoner of his right to gain-time or commutation of time for good conduct, as provided by law, from the date on which he is returned to prison.
§ 948.06(6), Fla.Stat. (1989). This applies to offenses committed on or after October 1, 1989. See Ch. 89-531, § 19, Laws of Fla. Appellant’s offenses occurred after October 1, 1989. Thus section 948.06(6) applies in this case. See also Webb v. State, 630 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Green, 547 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 1989)
- L.C. Bradley v. State, 631 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 1994)
- Haynes v. State, 440 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Goley v. State, 584 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Grimsley v. State, 408 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Webb v. State, 630 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Barfield v. State, 599 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)