RICHARD L. TILEBEIN, 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.
Court affirmed revocation of probation where defendant failed to report and drove without a valid license, constituting a second-degree misdemeanor, though remanded for written order specifying violated conditions.
Probation revocation is proper when a probationer fails to report and commits a new criminal violation (driving without valid license), which constitutes a second-degree misdemeanor.
[1] Driving without a valid driver's license constitutes a second-degree misdemeanor under Florida law and provides grounds for probation revocation when combined with other…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTilebein failed to report in June and was stopped driving without a valid driver's license.…
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 New Law Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Richard L. Tilebein appeals the revocation of probation for his failure to report and a new law violation based on his driving without a valid license. Based on the evidence before the trial court, we see no abuse of discretion and affirm.
The evidence showed and the trial court found that Mr. Tilebein failed to report in June. A single failure to report, standing alone, may not warrant revocation of probation. See Sanders v. State, 675 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The evidence also showed that Mr. Tilebein was stopped while driving without a valid driver’s license. This constitutes a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by not more than sixty days in jail. See §§ 822.03(1), 322.39, 775.082(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (1997). Mr. Tilebein argues that his conduct did not constitute a criminal violation. Based on the above cited statutes, we disagree. See also Baker v. State, 428 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (revoking probation for driving with suspended license); Ontiveros v. State, 746 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (alleging violation of probation based on driving without valid license). Based on these violations, we affirm the revocation of probation and subsequent sentence of twenty-four months in prison. Because the record lacks a written order specifying the conditions violated, we remand for this purpose.
Affirmed and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sanders v. State, 675 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Ontiveros v. State, 746 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Baker v. State, 428 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)