CHRISTOPHER LUCAS MONROE, 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.
Christopher Monroe appealed the revocation of his probation, arguing the State failed to prove the alleged violations. The court agreed, finding that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing did not support the specific violations alleged in the affidavit—armed robbery and home invasion—and reversed the revocation without prejudice to the State to refile.
The court held that the evidence presented did not support the alleged violations of armed robbery and home invasion, as the only evidence concerned Monroe's participation in a fleeing and eluding incident. The revocation was reversed without prejudice to allow the State to refile an appropriate affidavit.
[1] A probation revocation order must be supported by evidence proving the specific allegations contained in the affidavit of violation of probation.
[2] A State must present evidence of the alleged probation violations; testimony regarding unrelated criminal conduct does not satisfy this burden.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 affidavit of violation of probation alleged that Monroe had committed a home invasion and an armed robbery, and the evidence at the hearing concerned Monroe's participation in a fleeing and eluding incident.”
Establishes the mismatch between allegations and evidence that required reversal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMonroe pleaded no contest to armed robbery, armed kidnapping, and attempted sexual battery, and was sentenced to five years in prison followed by ten …
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 Burden Of Proof In Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
DAVIS, Judge.
Christopher Lucas Monroe appeals the order revoking his probation and the sentence subsequently imposed. He argues that the State failed to prove the allegations contained in the affidavit of violation of probation. We agree and reverse.
Monroe pleaded no contest to charges of armed robbery, armed kidnaping, and attempted sexual battery. He was sentenced to five years in prison, followed by ten years of probation. On April 7, 1999, the State filed an affidavit of violation of probation alleging that Monroe violated three conditions of probation, including condition four, which required him to live without committing any further new law violations. The affidavit alleged that Monroe had violated condition four by committing an armed robbery and a home invasion by false representation.
At the revocation hearing, the State called only one witness, a Lake Wales police officer, who testified about Monroe’s involvement in a felony fleeing to elude and driving with a suspended license incident. The State presented no evidence concerning an armed robbery or a home invasion. The court found that Monroe had violated condition four and revoked his probation.
Monroe argues that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing does not support the violation of condition four that was alleged in the affidavit of violation of probation. We agree. The affidavit of violation of probation alleged that Monroe had committed a home invasion and an armed rpbbery, and the evidence at the hearing concerned Monroe’s participation in a fleeing and eluding incident. The State concedes error. Accordingly, we reverse the order revoking probation without prejudice to the State to refile an appropriate affidavit. Parminter v. State, 762 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
We note parenthetically that this is a belated appeal. Monroe was before the trial court for violation of probation in two separate cases. There was but one affidavit of violation of probation filed for the two cases. Monroe appealed the revocation in the other case, and this court reversed for the same reason we reverse here. Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We note this companion case only to reiterate the admonition contained in that opinion regarding the use of the “Memo of Sentence” or “snapout” as an order of revocation of probation.
Reversed.and remanded with directions.
FULMER, A.C.J., and WHATLEY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Braswell v. State, 804 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…tence is inadequate to revoke probation. In Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289, 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), this court explained that the use of a memo of sentence or snapout is inadequate to serve as a formal order of revocation. See also Monroe v. State, 784 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Grantham v. State, 735 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We there [*524] fore reverse and remand for entry of a formal written order revoking Braswell’s probation and imposing se…
-
Phillips v. State, 198 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…s v. State, 987 So. 2d 669, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Akridge v. Crow, 903 So. 2d 346, 350-51 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sutton v. State, 838 So. 2d 616, 617 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Heath v. State, 840 So. 2d 307, 308-09 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Monroe v. State, 784 So. 2d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Richardson v. State, 761 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289, 289-90 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Peterson v. State, 730 So. 2d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). . The supreme court has recognized the u…
-
Dagan v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…346, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (urging the use of proper forms in lieu of snapouts); Braswell v. State, 804 So. 2d 523, 523 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a snapout is insufficient to serve as an order of revocation of probation); Monroe v. State, 784 So. 2d 1163, 1164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (reiterating this court's prior admonition regarding the use of snapouts as orders of revocation of probation); Richardson v. State, 761 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing the defendant's sentence because the…
Authorities Cited
- Parminter v. State, 762 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Monroe v. State, 760 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)