PATRICIA GOINES, 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.
Appellant Goines challenged the revocation of her community control, arguing the violation affidavit lacked proper oath and the evidence of willful violation was insufficient. The court affirmed the revocation, holding that the affidavit complied with statutory verification requirements and the evidence legally supported the trial court's findings.
The affidavit satisfied statutory requirements because the verification statement constituted proper verification under section 92.525, Florida Statutes. The evidence presented at the revocation hearing was legally sufficient to support the trial judge's finding that appellant's violations were willful.
[1] A statement under penalties of perjury constitutes a valid verification of an affidavit for the purpose of initiating a revocation of community control.
[2] Evidence presented at a revocation hearing must be legally sufficient to support a finding that the violations of community control were willful.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“any committing magistrate" may issue an arrest warrant for one alleged to have violated the conditions of his or her probation or community control "upon the facts being made known to him [or her] by affidavit of one having knowledge of such facts.”
Establishes the statutory framework allowing warrants based on affidavits for probation/community control violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Goines was on community control. A supervising probation officer signed an affidavit alleging violations of the conditions of her community …
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order revoking community control. She argues that it was error to revoke community control because the affidavit alleging that she had violated the conditions of her community control was not made under oath, and because the evidence presented at the revocation hearing was legally insufficient to establish that the violations had been willful. We affirm.
Section 948.06(1), Florida Statutes (1995), provides that “any committing magistrate” may issue an arrest warrant for one alleged to have violated the conditions of his or her probation or community control “upon the facts being made known to him [or her] by affidavit of one having knowledge of such facts.” (Emphasis added.) The “affidavit” alleging that appellant had violated the conditions of her community control was signed by appellant’s supervising probation officer, and contained the following statement: “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing affidavit and that the facts stated in it are true.” Pursuant to section 92.525, Florida Statutes (1995), such a statement constitutes “verification” of any document “authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court” to be ‘Verified,” including “affidavits.” Accordingly, there is no merit to appellant’s first argument.
We have carefully reviewed the evidence presented during appellant’s revocation hearing. Having done so, we conclude that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial judge’s finding that appellant’s violations were willful. Accordingly, we reject this argument, as well.
AFFIRMED.
ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jackson v. State, 881 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…s a statement in writing under an oath administered by a duly authorized person.”). . See State v. Johnston, 553 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) and § 92.525(3), Fla. Stat. (2002). . We do not believe our holding is in conflict with Goines v. State, 691 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), in which the appellant sought review of an order revoking her community control. It is unclear from Goines whether the appellant ever specifically argued that the charging document had to be sworn to before a person authorized t…
-
Hyden v. State, 117 So. 3d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…ment for other documents. See, e.g., J.S.L. Constr. Co. v. Levy, 994 So. 2d 394, 399 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (statement of account by a contractor); Green v. State, 941 So. 2d 1250, 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (petition for belated appeal); Goines v. State, 691 So. 2d 593, 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (affidavit of violation of probation). However, there are decisions refusing to find the oath in section 92.525(2) sufficient to meet the same or similar oath requirements. See, e.g., Crain v. State, 914 So. 2d 1015, 1018-21…
-
Crain v. State, 914 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…“before a person au [*1027] thorized to administer oaths.” If Judge Torpy is correct, these “affidavits” can be replaced by verification. Judge Torpy relies primarily on two cases, State v. Shearer, 628 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1993), and Goines v. State, 691 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), neither of which was cited by the State in Jackson. Although we identified them both in our own research and considered them both in deciding Jackson, we referred only to Goines in the Jackson opinion. We said that the stated ra…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence