RICHARD W. CLINE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation, rejecting appellant's challenges to the trial court's finding of a probation violation and sufficiency of evidence.
A trial court's findings regarding probation violation are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the court need not make explicit findings of willfulness or substantiality when the degree of culpability can be gleaned from the factual findings describing the violation.
[1] Failure to object to a probation condition constitutes acceptance of that condition, and a trial court need not make explicit separate findings of willfulness or substant…
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 intelligenceAppellant Cline violated condition 10(e) of his probation, a condition required by Florida Statutes section 948.03(5)(a)5, involving forbidden contact…
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 Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reject appellant’s contention that the trial court erred by finding that he violated condition 10(e) of his probation, a condition required by section 948.03(5)(a)5., Florida Statutes (1997). See Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812, 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (“The failure to object to a condition of probation constitutes acceptance of that condition.”). We also reject appellant’s contention that the trial court failed to make a specific finding that appellant’s violation was either willful or substantial. The required degree of culpability can be easily gleaned from the trial court’s findings describing the incident of violation. Moreover, the record contains ample evidence of appellant’s understanding of the condition of probation because of the cautionary words utilized by the original sentencing judge and, again at the time of his first violation, which involved the same class of forbidden contact as that involved in the present violation. Finally, we reject appellant’s contention that the trial court faded to require sufficient evidence for a revocation of probation. The trial court’s findings concerning the violation are reviewed by this court under an abuse of discretion standard. See, e.g., Tobias v. State, 828 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
AFFIRMED.
KAHN, WEBSTER and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Tobias v. State, 828 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Martinez v. State, 828 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)