EDDIE HOLLY WRIGHT, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation where defendant failed to file monthly reports as required, but struck the trial court's reference to DNA testing violation since the original probation order did not require DNA testing.
Probation revocation is proper when a defendant fails to file required monthly probation reports, but a trial court cannot revoke probation based on failure to submit to DNA testing if the original probation order did not impose that requirement.
[1] A probation condition requiring compliance with a probation officer's lawful instructions cannot be used to enforce requirements not contained in the original probation o…
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 intelligenceEddie Holly Wright was on probation and failed to file his monthly probation reports as instructed by the court. The probation officer also alleged he…
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 Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
The defendant, Eddie Holly Wright, appeals his judgment and sentence which were entered after the trial court revoked his probation. We affirm because, contrary to the defendant’s claim, the record evidence demonstrates that the defendant violated his probation by failing to file his monthly probation reports as instructed by the court.
We note that the affidavit alleging that the defendant had violated his probation charged that, in addition to failing to file his monthly reports, the defendant failed to undergo DNA testing as instructed by his probation officer. The affidavit described the failure to undergo the DNA test as a violation of condition 8 of the probation order which instructed the defendant to follow the probation officer’s lawful instructions. Importantly, the defendant’s original probation order did not require the defendant to submit to DNA testing. As a result, at the violation hearing the trial court properly concluded that this alleged violation could not be considered. However, the written revocation order conflicts with this ruling because the order states that the defendant’s probation was revoked in part because he failed to submit to DNA testing. Based upon these facts, we strike the reference in the revocation order to the defendant’s violation of condition 8.
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…, a probationer’s refusal to submit to a polygraph test when subsequently ordered to do so as part of sex offender treatment cannot be the basis for revoking probation. See Lane v. State, 762 So. 2d 560, 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); cf. Wright v. State, 687 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (alleged probation violation based on defendant’s failure to undergo DNA testing as instructed by his probation officer could not be considered at probation revocation hearing when original probation order did not require defenda…
-
Lane v. State, 762 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…we hold that the physician imposed requirement that a polygraph be introduced into a treatment program for crimes committed before October 1,1997 cannot be the basis for a revocation of probation by one who balks at compliance. Cf. Wright v. State, 687 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (alleged probation violation, based on defendant’s failure to undergo DNA testing as instructed by his probation officer, could not be considered at probation violation hearing, when original probation order did not require defen…
-
Shelton v. State, 851 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…obation/community control. See, e.g., Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(holding that probation could not be revoked for defendant’s failure to pay for a polygraph test as this was not a condition of probation); Wright v. State, 687 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(holding that probation could not be revoked for defendant’s failure to undergo DNA testing where probation order did not require such testing). Condition 1(a), the condition that Shelton was found to have violated, simply does no…