JEFFERY L. STEVENSON, 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.
Jeffery Stevenson appealed the revocation of his probation after being found to have violated multiple conditions. The appellate court reversed the finding regarding one violation due to insufficient evidence and remanded for the trial court to reconsider whether the remaining violations alone warranted revocation.
The court held that the evidence of arrest without more is insufficient to support a probation violation based on committing a new law violation. The court reversed the Condition 5 violation finding and remanded for the trial court to determine whether revocation would be justified based solely on violations of Conditions 8 and 9.
[1] A probationer's plea to new criminal charges, without more, is insufficient to sustain a revocation of probation.
[2] A trial court cannot revoke probation solely on proof that the probationer has been arrested for new offenses.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“It is improper to revoke probation solely on proof that the probationer has been arrested.”
Establishes the legal standard that arrest alone is insufficient to support a probation violation; citation to Ontiveros v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStevenson was on probation and was alleged to have violated four conditions: Condition 5 (committing a new law violation—domestic violence battery), C…
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 New Law Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Jeffery L. Stevenson challenges the revocation of his probation. We reverse the finding that Stevenson violated Condition 5 and remand for reconsideration.
Stevenson was charged with violating Conditions 5, 8, 9, and 10. The affidavit alleged that he violated: Condition 5, by committing a new law violation, domestic violence battery; Condition 8, by failing to work diligently in a lawful occupation in that he failed to obtain gainful employment; Condition 9, by failing to comply with instructions, in that he was instructed to obtain gainful employment and to obtain a social security card; and Condition 10, by failing to make any payments toward his court-ordered monetary obligations. After a hearing, the trial court orally found Stevenson guilty of violating Conditions 5, 8, and 9.1
The only evidence presented that Stevenson committed the new law violation came from the probation officer who testified that Stevenson was arrested for a battery but the charge was nolle prossed because the victim could not be located. This testimony was insufficient to support the violation of Condition 5. See Ontiveros v. State, 746 So. 2d 1174, 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“It is improper to revoke probation solely on proof that the probationer has been arrested.”).
Some testimony was presented to support the violation of Conditions 8 and 9. We are unable to determine from the record whether the trial court would have revoked Stevenson’s probation based on these violations alone. See Blair v. State, 805 So. 2d 873, 878 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Iaconetti v. State, 668 So. 2d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Therefore, we reverse for reconsideration of the revocation.
Reversed and remanded.
SALCINES and CANADY, JJ., concur. . The order revoking probation incorrectly states that Stevenson pleaded guilty to the violation, when in fact he was found guilty after an evidentiary hearing. The order is also deficient in that it fails to identify the specific conditions that Stevenson was found to have violated. We point out these deficiencies in the order so that the trial court may rectify them on remand.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sharpston v. State, 895 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…rmed Sharpston that he allegedly violated probation by being arrested for petit theft; and Sharpston agreed. Not once was Sharpston asked whether he actually committed the crime. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse. See, e.g., Stevenson v. State, 843 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Ontiveros v. State, 746 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Manies v. State, 621 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We note that on remand, the State is not precluded from attempting to prove a violation based on the same circumstances a…
Authorities Cited
- Blair v. State, 805 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Ontiveros v. State, 746 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Iaconetti v. State, 668 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)