STEVE WILLIAM ERMATINGER, 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.
Steve Ermatinger appeals his conviction and sentence following revocation of his community control and probation for aggravated battery and felonious possession of a firearm. The court affirms in part the revocation of probation for alcohol consumption and failure to file reports, but reverses the revocation of community control as the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the revocation process began after the community control period expired.
The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke community control because the revocation process did not commence during the probationary period, requiring reversal of the community control revocation. However, the court affirmed the revocation of probation for violation of condition 22 (alcohol consumption) as Ermatinger admitted to consuming alcohol, and affirmed revocation based on condition 1 (failure to file reports) when coupled with the wilful violation of condition 22.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to revoke probation or community control for a violation that occurs after the probationary or community control period has expired, unle…
[2] A defendant's mental illness does not excuse a wilful violation of a condition of probation prohibiting alcohol consumption.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial court lacks jurisdiction to revoke probation for a violation that occurs within the period of probation "unless the revocation process is set in motion during the probationary period."”
Establishes the jurisdictional requirement that revocation must be initiated while the probationary period is still active.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceErmatinger was sentenced on August 27, 1998, to two years' community control followed by three years' probation for aggravated battery, and ten months…
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 Jurisdiction To Revoke Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
Steve Ermatinger appeals his conviction and sentence following the revocation of his community control and probation. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Ermatinger was sentenced on August 27, 1998, pursuant to a plea agreement, to two years’ community control followed by three years’ probation for aggravated battery. On that same date, Ermatinger entered an open plea to felonious possession of a firearm, and after a hearing was sentenced to ten months’ incarceration followed by fourteen years’ probation. Both sentences were to run concurrent.
On October 16, 2000, Ermatinger was arrested for violation of community control based on an arrest affidavit filed by his probation officer. On October 31, 2000, his probation officer filed a second affidavit of violation of community control and an affidavit alleging that Ermatinger had violated several conditions of his probation. Following a hearing, the trial court found Ermatinger in violation of both his probation and community control and sentenced him to concurrent terms of sixty months’ incarceration on both counts.
Ermatinger argues that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his community control on the aggravated battery conviction because he had completed his two-year term of community control when the revocation process began.
We agree. A trial court lacks jurisdiction to revoke probation for a violation that occurs within the period of probation “unless the revocation process is set in motion during the probationary period.” Hoffman v. State, 729 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
This same requirement applies to community control. Tyson v. State, 655 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Ermatinger’s concurrent sentences on the felonious possession of a firearm and aggravated battery were imposed on August 27, 1998. Erma-tinger’s term of community control on the aggravated battery offense therefore expired on August 27, 2000. Because the revocation process did not begin until October, after Ermatinger’s period of community control expired, the trial court was without jurisdiction to revoke his community control for aggravated battery. See Morgan v. State, 757 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Hoffman, 729 So. 2d 421.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the affidavit alleging violations of community control on this offense be dismissed, that the order revoking Er-matinger’s community control be vacated, and that his sentence for violation of community control be vacated.
Ermatinger also argues that the trial court erred in finding that he violated conditions 1 and 22 of his probation for felonious possession of a firearm because any violations were caused by his mental illness and thus were not wilful. We disagree. Condition 1 of Ermatinger’s probation required that he file a monthly report. The affidavit of violation of probation alleged that Ermatinger failed to file the required report on October 3, 2000. Condition 22 prohibited Ermatinger from consuming alcohol. The affidavit of violation alleged that Ermatinger admitted to his probation officer that he consumed alcohol on September 13, 2000.
Expert testimony was introduced at the revocation hearing that the majority of Ermatinger’s problems related to his use of alcohol. This court has held that even an alcoholic must refrain from using alcohol when abstention is a required condition of probation. See Spry v. State, 750 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Ermatinger admitted to consuming alcohol while on probation. We therefore affirm the revocation of his probation for violation of this condition. Failure to file one written report, standing alone, is generally insufficient to support revocation of probation. Butler v. State, 775 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
However, coupled with Ermatinger’s wilful violation of condition 22, we conclude that revocation based on violation of condition 1 was proper.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
NORTHCUTT and STRINGER, JJ, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Perez v. State, 884 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…of the trial court’s determination is for abuse of discretion. Hanania, 855 So. 2d at 94. A single failure to report to a probation officer may, under certain circumstances, justify a revocation of a defendant’s probation. See Ermatinger v. State, 866 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Nevertheless, the facts in the present case do not support the modification. Perez’s failure to report to the probation office between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. cannot be viewed as a substantial violation in light of the fact that h…
-
Abbey v. State, 39 So. 3d 546 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…revocation process is set in motion during the probationary period.” Hoffman v. State, 729 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). This same requirement applies to community control. Tyson v. State, 655 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Ermatinger v. State, 866 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing a revocation of community control for lack of jurisdiction when the revocation process did not begin until the defendant had completed his community control and was already serving his consecutive term of probation…
-
Tatman v. State, 32 So. 3d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…he term of community control expires unless the revocation process is set in motion during the term of community control. State v. Boyd, 717 So. 2d 524, 526 (Fla.1998) (citing Carroll v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla.1962)); Ermatinger v. State, 866 So. 2d 698, 699 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Morgan v. State, 757 So. 2d 618, 619-20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The supreme court has explained that “when the affidavit is filed charging violation of the probation, the warrant is issued and the violator taken in custody withi…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Butler v. State, 775 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Elvin Otis Morgan v. State, 757 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Jarod H. Hoffman v. State, 729 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Tyson v. State, 655 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Fallschase Dev. Corp. v. Jackson A. Sheard & Oxford-America Corp., 655 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Spry v. State, 750 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)