ROBERT SHARPSTON, 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.
A probation revocation based solely on proof of arrest, without evidence that the probationer actually committed the alleged crime, is improper and must be reversed.
A revocation of probation cannot be based solely upon proof of an arrest; the State must prove the probationer actually committed the underlying crime.
[1] A probation revocation cannot rest solely on proof of arrest; the State must prove the probationer actually committed the alleged crime.
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“The Florida Statutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, a permanent revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest during the probationary period.”
The court cited Hines v. State to establish the controlling legal standard for probation revocations.
Sharpston was arrested for petit theft during his probationary period. At the revocation hearing, the judge informed Sharpston he allegedly violated p…
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 Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
A revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest is improper. For this reason, we reverse the revocation of Robert Sharpston’s probation. As the supreme court has explained, “[t]he Florida Statutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, a permanent revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest during the probationary period.” Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978). At the revocation hearing, defense counsel stated that Sharpston wanted to admit being arrested; the judge informed 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 as long as the period of supervision has not expired. See Wilson v. State, 842 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Our disposition renders Sharpston’s other issue on appeal moot.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…ed for No Valid Driver’s License.” However, it is improper to revoke probation solely on proof that the probationer has been arrested. Ontiveros v. State, 746 So. 2d 1174, 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). As this court recently stated in Sharpston v. State, 895 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978)), “ ‘the Florida Statutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, a permanent revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest during the proba…
-
Humbert v. State, 933 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…erance of evidence). Indeed, the State, at the revocation hearing on remand, is not precluded from attempting to prove Humbert’s violations based on the same circumstances as long as the period of supervision has not expired. See Sharpston v. State, 895 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing revocation in which the violation was based solely on defendant’s arrest); Chavous v. State, 597 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (reversing revocation in which the violation was demonstrated solely by hearsay). Acc…
-
Hernandez v. State, 33 So. 3d 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…d. at 1286. This court has recognized that “ e[t]he Florida Statutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, a permanent revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest during the probationary period.’ ” Sharpston v. State, 895 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978)). Here, the trial court revoked Hernandez’s probation based solely upon his arrest. The State contends that the testimony at the revocation hearing concerning the arme…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1978)
- Manies v. State, 621 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Ontiveros v. State, 746 So. 2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Wilson v. State, 842 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Stevenson v. State, 843 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)