MICHAEL EDDIE, 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.
Michael Eddie was convicted of lewd and indecent acts and sentenced to concurrent split sentences with a condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors. On appeal from probation revocation, the court affirmed the revocation based on Eddie's unsupervised contact with minor children but reversed the revocation on a second ground that was based on violation of a condition imposed by a probation officer rather than the trial court.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation based on Eddie's unsupervised contact with the two minor children, as this violated an express condition of the trial court. However, the court reversed the revocation based on the failure to relocate, as violation of a condition imposed by a probation officer, rather than the trial court, cannot support revocation of probation.
[1] A probation violation based on a condition imposed by a probation officer, rather than an express condition of the trial court, cannot serve as a basis for revocation of…
[2] Sufficient evidence supporting at least one ground for revocation is sufficient to affirm an order of revocation.
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“Sufficient evidence in the record supports the first of the two grounds for revocation, that Eddie had unsupervised contact with the two minors, and for this reason we affirm the order of revocation.”
Establishes that the unsupervised contact ground was supported by sufficient evidence and therefore affirmed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEddie was convicted on March 12, 1995, of two counts of committing lewd, lascivious, or indecent acts and sentenced to concurrent split sentences of 5…
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
PER CURIAM.
Michael Eddie (Eddie), on March 12, 1995, was convicted of two counts of committing a lewd, lascivious, or indecent act and sentenced to concurrent split sentences of 5/6 years in prison followed by five years on probation with the express condition that he have no unsupervised contact with minor children. Eddie was released from incarceration in January 1998. Eddie, upon his release, was permitted to reside with his aunt and uncle and their two minor children, with the condition that Eddie have no unsupervised contact with the minor children. A probation officer, on April 28, 1998, filed an affidavit alleging that Eddie violated his probation by having unsupervised contact with the two minor children and by failing to move from his residence within three days after being instructed to do so by his probation officer. The trial court, following the violation of probation hearing, found that Eddie had violated his probation by having unsupervised contact with the two minor boys with whom he resided and by failing to change his residence as instructed by his probation officer. Sufficient evidence in the record supports the first of the two grounds for revocation, that Eddie had unsupervised contact with the two minors, and for this reason we affirm the order of revocation. The second ground for revocation, however, must be vacated because violation of a condition imposed by a probation officer, rather than by the trial court, will not support revocation of probation. Kiess v. State, 642 So. 2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that “[violation of a condition which is imposed by a probation officer, rather than an express condition of the trial court, cannot serve as a basis for revocation of probation”).
Accordingly, we affirm the order of revocation, but only on the ground that Eddie had unsupervised contact with the two minor boys.
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
ALLEN, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eddie v. State, 933 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
-
Schlup v. State, 772 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…pport a finding that the appellant violated the condition that he “live without violating the law,” and that the amended order may properly base revocation of his probation upon such a finding. ERVIN and WOLF, JJ., CONCUR. . See Eddie v. State, 740 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Talley v. State, 708 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Waldon v. State, 670 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Kiess v. State, 642 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Hutchinson v. State, 428 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Haynes v. St…
-
Ackerman v. State, 835 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…conditions. Probation may not be revoked for violation of a condition or requirement unilaterally imposed by a probation officer but not by the trial court in the sentencing order. Perez v. State, 805 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Eddie v. State, 740 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (citing Kiess v. State, 642 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)). However, the Florida supreme court has held that reasonable delegations by the trial court of incidental discretion to a probation officer are allowed. Larson v. State…
Authorities Cited
- Kiess v. State, 642 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)