VINCENT FOGGY, 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 Fourth District reversed the trial court's probation revocation as to three conditions for lack of evidence of willful violation, affirmed violations of two other conditions, and remanded for reconsideration of whether revocation was warranted given the partial reversal.
A probation revocation order must be supported by evidence of willful and substantial violation of probation conditions, and where some violations are unsupported by evidence, the case must be remanded for reconsideration of whether revocation is appropriate.
[1] Probation revocation requires evidence of willful and substantial violation of probation conditions; unsupported violations must be reversed and the case remanded for rec…
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 intelligence“There was no evidence presented on these issues which would show a willful and substantial violation of the conditions of probation.”
Court's explanation for reversing findings on three probation conditions
Vincent Foggy was on probation with multiple conditions including payment of court costs and supervision costs, working diligently at a lawful occupat…
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 Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Vincent Foggy, appeals the order of the circuit court revoking his probation. After a review of the record, we reverse the trial court’s findings that Foggy willfully violated his probation by failing to pay court costs and costs of supervision (conditions 11 and 2, respectively) and by failing to work diligently at a lawful occupation (condition 7). There was no evidence presented on these issues which would show a willful and substantial violation of the conditions of probation. We affirm the trial court’s findings that Foggy violated condition 3 (failing to make reasonable efforts to procure the consent of his probation officer prior to moving) and condition 18 (unauthorized contact with a child under the age of eighteen).
We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider whether probation revocation is still warranted in view of this decision. See Meadows v. State, 747 So. 2d 1043, 1045 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(remanding case to trial court for reconsideration where one of two probation violations had been reversed, and it was not apparent that the trial court would have revoked probation based on the remaining violation)(citing Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FARMER, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Moore v. State, 747 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Meadows v. State, 747 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)