JEROME DRAYTON A/K/A JAMES ROGERS, 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.
Jerome Drayton appeals the revocation of his community control based on alleged violations. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation, holding that the trial court's written order, combined with the hearing transcript and oral findings, satisfied due process requirements for probation revocation.
The trial court's written orders comply with due process requirements. The court's written order specifying the specific violations found, combined with the hearing transcript and oral findings, creates a record sufficiently complete to advise the parties and reviewing court of the reasons for revocation and the evidence upon which the decision was based.
[1] A written court status sheet specifying the violations found complies with due process requirements for revocation of community control.
[2] Due process is satisfied when the transcript of a revocation hearing, the court's oral findings, and the written order provide a sufficiently complete record of the reaso…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The court status sheet complies with the due process requirement that a written order specify the reasons, i.e., the specific violations found, for a revocation of probation or community control.”
Establishes the core due process standard for written revocation orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDrayton was placed on community control pursuant to three felony convictions in October 1995. In September 1996, the State filed affidavits alleging v…
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.
GROSS, Judge.
Appellant, Jerome Drayton, was placed on community control pursuant to three felony convictions in October, 1995. In September, 1996, the State filed affidavits in each ease alleging violations of community control. At a hearing held on December 18, 1996, the trial court heard evidence pertaining to the violations. On the record and in a written court status sheet, the trial court found appellant guilty of eight of the twelve violations alleged in one of the affidavits. These eight violations were also the sole basis for the violations of probation in the other two cases. In written sentencing orders, the trial court revoked appellant’s community control and sentenced him to concurrent terms in the department of corrections. The court status sheet complies with the due process requirement that a written order specify the reasons, i.e., the specific violations found, for a revocation of probation or community control. Cf. Watts v. State, 688 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Mitchell v. State, 681 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Glendon v. State, 669 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); McCloud v. State, 653 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
Appellant also argues that the written orders are deficient because they fail to delineate the specific evidence the court relied upon in finding the particular violations of community control. As we have previously held, the transcript of the hearing on the violations provides “an opportunity for review of the revocation hearing superior to the written statement of evidence and reasons required by Gagnon v. Scarpelli”
Latham v. State, 360 So. 2d 127, 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (quoting Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)). The transcript of the hearing, the court’s oral findings, and the written order satisfy due process requirements, since they “create a record sufficiently complete to advise the parties and the reviewing court of the reasons for the revocation [of community control] and the evidence the decision maker relied upon.” United States v. Copeland, 20 F. 3d 412, 414 (11th Cir.1994); see United States v. Whalen, 82 F. 3d 528, 530-31 (1st Cir.1996); United States v. Copley, 978 F. 2d 829, 831-32 (4th Cir.1992).
AFFIRMED.
STONE, C.J., and KLEIN, J., concur. . 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 186 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…ritten order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.” King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (emphasis added). Because the trial court failed to comply with this requirement, we reverse. In Drayton v. State, 710 So. 2d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), we held that a “slip sheet” complied with the requirement of a written order where it “specified] the [*597] reasons, i.e., the specific violations found, for a revocation of probation or community control.” (emphasis adde…
-
Pacheco v. State, 736 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the revocation of probation but remand this case to the trial court to specify in a written order the conditions it found that the appellant violated. See Drayton v. State, 710 So. 2d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). DELL, POLEN and FARMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Dipnarine Maharaj v. State, 956 So. 2d 1263 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973)
- Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Watts v. State, 688 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- McCLOUD v. State, 653 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ferguson v. State, 669 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- United States v. Dwaine Copeland, 20 F.3d 412 (11th Cir. 1994)
- Mitchell v. State, 681 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829 (4th Cir. 1992)
- Corset Cove, Inc. v. Rosen, 360 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)