JEFFREY MEADOWS, 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.
Jeffrey Meadows appeals the revocation of his probation based on two alleged violations. The court found that while the evidence supported one violation (improper 911 call), the trial court erred in finding him guilty on a second count that the State had agreed not to pursue, requiring reversal and remand for reconsideration.
The court held that it was error for the trial court to revoke probation based on Count I because the State had agreed not to proceed on that count, and probationers are entitled to notice of alleged violations. However, sufficient evidence supported the finding that Meadows accessed 911 for a non-emergency purpose. Because the revocation was based on two violations and it is unclear whether the trial court would have revoked probation based on the single remaining violation, the decision is reversed and remanded.
[1] A trial court errs by finding a probationer guilty of a violation when the State agreed not to proceed on that specific violation at the outset of the hearing.
[2] Sufficient evidence supports a finding that a probationer accessed 911 for a non-emergency purpose when the probationer admits to calling to get even with a roommate and…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Probationers are entitled to notice of what law the probationer is alleged to have violated”
Establishes that the trial court erred in finding Meadows guilty of Count I when the State had agreed not to proceed on that count
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMeadows' probation was revoked based on two alleged violations: (1) committing aggravated battery and domestic violence by hitting his roommate with a…
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 Domestic Violence cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, J.
The defendant, Jeffrey Meadows, appeals the revocation of his probation and sentence. The defendant’s probation was revoked based upon two violations; however, because we conclude one of the violations is invalid, we reverse and remand.
The affidavit of violation contained two counts, i.e., (1) the defendant committed aggravated battery and domestic violence by hitting his roommate on the head with a flashlight; and (2) in a later incident, the defendant accessed 911 for a non-emergency purpose. At the beginning of the violation hearing, the State agreed to proceed only on the second count, accessing 911 for a non-emergency purpose. The State presented the testimony of the responding officer who explained that the defendant acknowledged calling 911 to get even with his roommate. In addition, the tape of the 911 call was played for the trial court. The defendant testified on his own behalf and admitted to hitting his roommate with a flashlight in a prior altercation. The trial court concluded the defendant was guilty of both counts and revoked his probation.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the State agreed not to proceed on count I and thus the trial court’s revocation of probation based upon both counts was improper. Further, the defendant contends the evidence was insufficient to establish he accessed 911 for an improper purpose.
With regard to count I, because the State agreed at the beginning of the violation hearing not to proceed on count I, it was error for the trial court to conclude the defendant violated his probation based upon the allegations in count I. See generally Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(stating, “Probationers are entitled to notice of what law the probationer is alleged to have violated”).
As to count II, we conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the defendant accessed 911 for a non-emergency purpose, in violation of his probation. The responding officer testified that at the scene, the defendant’s roommate asked the defendant if he had called 911 to get even with him for a prior incident and the defendant responded he had. In addition, the responding officer testified that the defendant was calmly seated on the couch when he arrived and that there was no emergency situation. Further, the tape of the 911 call was played to the trial court and reflected that when the defendant was asked to give his address, he replied, “I will have to call you back.” The call itself implies an emergency situation was not occurring. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion finding the defendant guilty of accessing 911 for a non-emergency purpose.
However, because the revocation of probation was based upon two violations, and it is not apparent whether the trial court would have revoked the defendant’s probation based upon the remaining violation, we reverse the revocation and remand to the trial court for reconsideration. See Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Furthermore, there is a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral and written sentence. Thus, on remand, should the trial court conclude the single violation is sufficient to revoke the appellant’s probation, the trial court should ensure the written and oral sentences conform.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
FARMER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Branch v. State, 837 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…olations is not in the record. The state withdrew these violations at the first hearing, and the court erred in allowing the state to reinstate them at the second hearing. Therefore, the revocation on these grounds is in error. See Meadows v. State, 747 So. 2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). However, these remaining violations were insubstantial and we conclude the court would have revoked appellant’s probation based solely upon her use of marijuana. We affirm the court’s order. SHAHOOD and TAYLOR, JJ., conc…
-
Wilcox v. State, 770 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…r, even so, would have imposed the same sentence, we reverse the order of revocation and remand this cause to the trial court for such lawful disposition on the violations charged in Counts I, II and IV as it deems appropriate. See Meadows v. State, 747 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Brown v. State, 659 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). REVERSED and REMANDED. STONE and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . Rogers’ testimony to this effect was sufficient to support…
-
Foggy v. State, 837 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…prior to moving) and condition 18 (unauthorized contact with a child under the age of eighteen). We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider whether probation revocation is still warranted in view of this decision. See Meadows v. State, 747 So. 2d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(remanding case to trial court for reconsideration where one of two probation violations had been reversed, and it was not apparent that the trial court would have revoked probation based on the remaining violation)(citing A…
Authorities Cited
- Myles Franklin Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)