CURTIS L. WYNS, 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 trial court's probation revocation order is reversed because the written findings conflicted with oral findings, alleged violations were not properly charged, and the testimony did not support the findings.
A probation revocation order must be reversed when the written findings conflict with oral findings, the violation alleged differs from that found, and the testimony does not support the findings.
[1] Probation revocation must be based solely on violations alleged in the charging document, and fundamental due process is violated when the court finds violations not prop…
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“Because fundamental due process requires revocation to be based upon only those violations alleged, the order of revocation is reversed.”
The court explaining why the revocation order must be reversed due to the violation of due process principles.
Curtis Leon Wyns was on probation with conditions including not violating any law and not being hostile to victims. The trial court found he violated …
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 Fundamental Fairness cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court’s order of violation of probation states that the court found that Curtis Leon Wyns violated Condition 4 of his probation by committing the offenses of aggravated battery and domestic battery. Condition 4 required him to “not violate any law while on probation.” This written finding must be stricken because it conflicts with the court’s oral finding that the revocation was based on Wyns having violated Condition 15 of his probation by “being hostile” to some unspecified victim. Walker v. State, 593 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). A violation of Condition 15 was in fact not alleged in the violation of probation charging document. Because fundamental due process requires revocation to be based upon only those violations alleged, the order of revocation is reversed. Towson v. State, 382 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We note, additionally, that the testimony at the violation hearing does not support the finding that Wyns violated Condition 4. The alleged victim testified that she was not battered and, the hearsay statements of the police officer cannot, by themselves, support a probation violation. Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
REVERSED.
PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSCH and ANTOON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Towson v. State, 382 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Cable Vision OF Cent. Fla. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Armes, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Harris v. State, 593 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)