MIGUEL PEREZ, 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 held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation and imposing sentence based on the evidence presented.
Appellant was charged with violating probation by changing residences without consent and leaving the scene of an accident. The trial court found thes…
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
PER CURIAM.
This court affirms the revocation of the appellant’s probation and imposition of sentence of 288 months in prison. The appellant was charged with violating his probation by changing residences without first obtaining the consent of his probation officer and by leaving the scene of an accident. (A third violation was alleged but is not at issue here.)
The trial court found, after receiving testimony and evidence, that the appellant moved from his approved residence without obtaining the consent of the probation officer and the appellant had left the scene of an accident. The trial court found both violations to have been willful and deliberate.
The standard of review in a probation revocation case is “abuse of discretion.” In probation revocation cases the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a condition of probation has been violated. The trial court’s findings will be affirmed absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See Maseri v. State, 752 So. 2d 719, 720 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
Testimony of witnesses at appellant’s probation revocation hearing, including his own testimony and that of his probation officer, together with other evidence presented, supported revocation of his probation. Therefore, the trial court had sufficient and substantial evidence before it upon which to base the revocation. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking the appellant’s probation and imposing sentence.
AFFIRMED.
STONE, STEVENSON, JJ., and CLARK, NIKKI ANN, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Latasia Webb v. State, 154 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…n hearsay evi [*1188] dence. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court’s order.1 “In probation revocation cases the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a condition of probation has been violated.” Perez v. State, 801 So. 2d 1001, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). “Accordingly, the appropriate standard of review for judgments finding probation violations is whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the violation.” Hurst v. State, 941 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 20…
-
Hill v. State, 890 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…1, 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (record supported revocation of probation where appellant was absent from residence on six occasions). Additionally, the trial court found that Hill moved from his approved residence without permission. See Perez v. State, 801 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Finally, the trial court found that Hill had committed two new substantive offenses of resisting arrest.1 While Hill contends that he gave valid reasons for the violations, it is within a trial court’s discretion to rule on the…
-
K.P. v. State, 35 So. 3d 1026 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…[*1027] PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Perez v. State, 801 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Maseri v. State, 762 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).…
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
- Prof'l Paramedic Serv., Inc. v. Vega, 752 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)