SCOTT RIGGINS, 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.
Scott Riggins appeals the revocation of his probation for violating a no-contact order with Carolyn Riggins. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's revocation, finding substantial evidence that Riggins deliberately and willfully violated the probation condition by appearing at Riggins' home and calling her within one month of sentencing.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation, holding that probation may only be revoked upon showing that the probationer deliberately and willfully violated one or more conditions of probation, and the record contained substantial competent evidence supporting the trial court's findings.
[1] Probation may only be revoked upon a showing that the probationer deliberately and willfully violated one or more conditions of probation.
[2] The determination of whether a violation of probation is willful and substantial is a question of fact that will not be overturned on appeal unless the record shows no ev…
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“Probation may only be revoked upon a showing that the probationer deliberately and willfully violated one or more conditions of probation.”
Establishes the legal standard for probation revocation that the court applied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn May 2001, Riggins pleaded no contest to aggravated stalking and was sentenced to probation with a specific condition prohibiting contact with Carol…
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 Deference To Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Scott Riggins challenges 'the circuit court order revoking his probation. In May of-2001, Mr. Riggins pleaded no contest to a charge of aggravating-stalking. He was sentenced to probation and specifically ordered to have no contact with Carolyn Riggins. Less than one month after sentencing, Mr. Riggins was seen outside the home of Carolyn Riggins. On the same day, Mr. Riggins also placed a telephone call to Ms. Riggins’ home.
The trial court found that Mr. Riggins materially, substantially, and willfully violated the terms of his probation and thereby revoked his probation and sentenced him to the Department of Corrections for five years. We agree with the findings of the trial court and affirm the revocation of probation.
Probation may only be revoked upon a showing that the probationer deliberately and willfully violated one or more conditions of probation. Jones v. State, 730 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The determination of whether a violation of probation is willful and substantial is a question of fact and will not be overturned on appeal unless the record shows that there is no evidence to support it. See Davis v. State, 796 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
In reaching our conclusion we once again recognize that the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and on appeal we are obligated to give great deference to the findings of the trial court. See Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917 (Fla.2001) (“We recognize and honor the trial court’s superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making findings of fact.”); D. Children v„ Department of Children and Families, 820 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“Deference to the trial court is necessary where evidence conflicts and the trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses in making findings of fact.”).
We find Mr. Riggins’ argument, that he did not know what “no contact” meant, unpersuasive. Moreover, we find it relevant that the underlying charge giving rise to the no contact order was aggravated stalking due to Mr. Riggins’ offensive contact with Ms. Riggins.
In conclusion, the record contains substantial competent evidence supporting the conclusion reached by the trial court. As a result, we hereby affirm the decision of the trial court revoking Mr. Riggins’ probation.
POLEN, C.J., GUNTHER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Durousseau v. State, 55 So. 3d 543 (Fla. 2010)…v. State, 842 So. 2d 52 (Fla.2003). As a general rule, the trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and appellate courts are obligated to give great deference to the findings of the trial court. Riggins v. State, 830 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla.2001) (“We recognize and honor the trial court’s superior vantage point in assessing the credibil [*563] ity of witnesses and in making findings of fact.”). In the instant case, Dr…
-
Karry Kaduk v. State, 959 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). “The determination of whether a violation of probation is willful and substantial is a question of fact and will not be overturned on appeal unless the record shows that there is no evidence to support it.” Riggins v. State, 830 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “For a violation of a condition of probation to trigger a revocation, the violation must be willful and substantial, and the state must prove it by the greater weight of the evidence.” Myers, 931 So. 2d at 1071 (quoting Tob…
-
Gilbert v. State, 913 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…Second, the postconviction court reasoned that Gilbert’s motion failed to allege prejudice because, even with Perez’s testimony, the court could have found that Gilbert violated his probation based on the other two violations. See Riggins v. State, 830 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). But this does not mean that after hearing Gilbert’s evidence at a revocation hearing the court would have found that Gilbert “willfully and substantially” violated any of the conditions. Indeed, the limited record before us sugg…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 2001)
- Loryvette Jones v. State, 730 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Davis v. State, 796 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Children v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 820 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)