EVAN INGRAM, 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.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation based on violations of conditions (6) and (8), but reversed the finding of a violation of condition (27).
Evan Ingram appealed the revocation of his probation. The revocation was based on alleged violations of conditions (6), (8), and (27).…
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 Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Evan Ingram appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm the revocation based on a violation of conditions (6) and (8), but reverse the finding of a violation of condition (27) and remand for entry of a written order. We affirm the revocation because the record supports a finding of a willful violation of conditions (6) and (8). However, we reverse the finding of a willful violation of probation condition (27), which required Ingram to submit to a mental health evaluation, because the probation order did not specify the time within which Ingram was required to obtain the evaluation and Ingram ultimately complied with this condition during the probationary period. See Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Furthermore, the record on appeal does not contain a written order of revocation. We, therefore, remand for entry of a revocation order which indicates the violation of probation conditions (6) and (8). See Hillman v. State, 663 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded with directions.
PARKER, A.C.J., and GREEN, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Neal v. State, 801 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…decision to revoke appellant’s probation based on this technical violation alone, and the sentence imposed. Lastly, both parties concede that this matter must be remanded for entry of a written order of revocation of probation. See Ingram v. State, 754 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Claveloux v. Bacotti, 778 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…on, 404 A. 2d 1020 (Me.1979). In Whalen, this court examined the important policy reasons for the rule favoring resolution of such disputes in probate proceedings following the death of the testator. See also All Children’s Hospital, Inc. v. Owens, 754 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). More important, however, was our recognition in Whalen that exceptions to the rule are limited to relatively rare circumstances in which post-death remedies are virtually certain to be inadequate. For example, in Carlton, the tor…
-
Henry v. Jones, 202 So. 3d 129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…dent tortious conduct required for this tort is directed at the testator, and the disappointed beneficiary brings the action primarily to protect the testator’s interests in freely disposing of his or her property. See All Children’s Hosp. v. Owens, 754 So. 2d 802, 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Here, Mr. Henry alleged that Mrs. Jones diverted funds from the mother’s estate by exercising undue influence over the mother. “Undue influence must amount to ‘over persuasion, duress, force, coercion, or artful or fraudule…
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
- Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Ricci M. Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Hillman v. State, 663 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)