ANGELO GOSS, 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 reversed probation revocation based on commission of a new felony because the trial court failed to specify which felony violation it relied upon, though it affirmed the revocation based on failure to pay supervision costs.
A trial court must explicitly specify which felony a probationer committed when revoking probation, and cannot revoke based on an uncharged or unspecified felony.
[1] A trial court must explicitly identify which specific felony a probationer committed when revoking probation based on commission of a new offense, and cannot revoke proba…
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“Probation cannot be revoked on a finding that a probationer committed an uncharged felony.”
Court explaining the legal standard for probation revocation based on new criminal conduct.
Angelo Goss's probation was revoked by the trial court based on two grounds: failure to pay supervision costs and commission of a new law offense. The…
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 Preponderance Of The Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
Angelo Goss appeals the revocation of his probation for failure to pay the costs of supervision and commission of a new law offense. We affirm as to the first issue, without comment; but reverse as to the second issue, because the trial court did not make clear which law violation it relied on to revoke probation.
The trial court erred in ruling that Appellant violated a condition of his probation on the basis of its finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Appellant “has committed at least one felony.” The trial court did not state which of the three charges it found Appellant to have committed, or whether it was some other, uncharged felony. Probation cannot be revoked on a finding that a probationer committed an uncharged felony. Ray v. State, 855 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). And, even if the trial court intended to refer to one of the charged felonies, we believe the trial court must specify which felony it suspected Appellant had committed. This is a logical application of the established rule that reasons for violation must be explicitly stated, set forth in McAffee v. State, 779 So. 2d 299, 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we reverse for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. If appropriate, the trial court shall enter a corrected order of revocation of probation. See, e.g., Oliver v. State, 819 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur. .
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- RAY v. State, 855 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Oliver v. State, 819 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- McAFFEE v. State, 779 So. 2d 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)