BILLY JOE GONZALES, 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.
Appellant Gonzales challenges the revocation of his probation based on an aggravated battery charge, arguing that a subsequent jury acquittal of that charge requires the revocation be set aside. The court holds that an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude probation revocation based on the same facts, as the standards of proof differ.
No. A jury acquittal in a criminal case does not require that probation revocation grounded on the same facts be set aside. The difference in standards of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal conviction versus preponderance of the evidence for probation violation) permits probation revocation even when the underlying criminal charge results in acquittal.
[1] An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a judge from determining that a probation violation has occurred based on the same conduct.
[2] A criminal case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while a probation violation need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence.
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“The fact that appellant was acquitted of aggravated battery by a jury does not mean that his probation could not be revoked based on the same facts.”
Establishes the core legal principle that acquittal does not prevent probation revocation based on identical conduct.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's probation was revoked based on his committing an aggravated battery. After the revocation occurred, a jury found appellant not guilty of t…
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 Beyond A Reasonable Doubt cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
This is an appeal from an order summarily denying appellant’s rule 3.850 motion directed to the sentence he received as a result of the revocation of his probation. He argues that the revocation, which was grounded on appellant’s committing an aggravated battery, should be set aside because, after the revocation, a jury found him not guilty of the aggravated battery.
The fact that appellant was acquitted of aggravated battery by a jury does not mean that his probation could not be revoked based on the same facts. Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the judge from determining that probation violation has occurred based on the same conduct-criminal case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and a probation violation need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence); Russ v. State, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla.1975)(It does not violate double jeopardy to revoke probation even though defendant was acquitted of criminal charges based on same facts); Williams v. State, 573 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(circumstances surrounding charge were sufficient to warrant revocation of probation, but insufficient to sustain conviction).1
We therefore conclude that the fact that the jury found appellant not guilty of the crime of aggravated battery does not require that the revocation of his probation, grounded on the facts underlying the aggravated battery charge, be set aside. Affirmed.
POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ, concur. . In Maximino v. State, 745 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) our entire opinion was as follows:
Appellant's probation was revoked after he was charged with burglary and sexual battery. After the revocation, he was acquitted of the sexual battery, and in Maximino v. State, 747 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), we reversed his conviction for burglary for a new trial. In light of these developments, we have concluded that the revocation of probation should be reversed and reconsidered by the trial court.
We are unable to determine from this brief opinion precisely why we reversed. It appears, however, that our reversal was not based on double jeopardy, because if it had been based on double jeopardy we would not have authorized the trial court to reconsider the revocation. Maximino, accordingly, does not support appellant's double jeopardy argument.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Washington Louis v. State, 797 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…tually acquitted on March 3, 2000. [*1282] Appellant has not demonstrated that because he was later acquitted of the pending charges that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation. Different standards of proof apply. See Gonzales v. State, 780 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“The fact that appellant was acquitted of aggravated battery by a jury does not mean that his probation could not be revoked based on the same facts.”); State v. Jenkins, 762 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“To meet its burden i…
-
Coney v. State, 995 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…r than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that applied at Coney’s criminal trial for the new charges. The fact Coney was found not guilty by a jury did not preclude a violation of probation based on the same allegations. See Gonzales v. State, 780 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Because the petition in 4D07-813 was duplicative, frivolous, and misleading as to facts and law, this court ordered Coney to show cause why the sanction of no longer accepting his pro se filings should not be imposed, State v.…
-
Alphonso Smith v. State, 6 So. 3d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Berry v. Castro Farms, 313 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1975)
- Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Williams v. State, 573 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Maximino v. State, 747 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Maximino v. State, 745 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Reese v. State, 745 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)