MARIO DAVIS, 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.
Mario Davis appeals the revocation of his probation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that Davis violated his probation by dealing in stolen property and providing false verification of ownership to a pawn broker, but reversed the finding regarding failure to report to the probation office due to insufficient evidence.
The court affirmed the trial court's findings that Davis committed new violations of law (dealing in stolen property and providing false verification to a pawn broker) as sufficient grounds for revocation, but reversed the finding of failure to report due to insufficient evidence. The state met its burden on the first two violations under the preponderance of evidence standard applicable to probation hearings.
[1] A trial court's revocation of probation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
[2] A violation of probation must be both willful and substantial to warrant revocation.
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“A violation which triggers a revocation of probation must be both willful and substantial, and the willful and substantial nature of the violation must be supported by the greater weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for probation revocation violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was on probation and the trial court found he violated his probation in three ways: (1) failing to report to the probation office as of June 200…
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 Greater Weight Of The Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Mario Davis appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation. Given the lower burden of proof in violation of probation hearings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Davis willfully and substantially violated his probation. We therefore affirm.
At the conclusion of the violation of probation hearing, the trial court found that Davis violated his probation by: 1) failing to report to the probation office as of June 2005, 2) violating the law by dealing in stolen property, and 3) violating the law by providing false verification of ownership to a pawn broker. On appeal, Davis contends that the state failed to prove these violations by a greater weight of the evidence.
The standard of review of a trial court’s revocation of probation is whether the court abused its discretion. Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). A violation which triggers a revocation of probation must be both willful and substantial, and the willful and substantial nature of the violation must be supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Id.
We conclude that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence of “guilty knowledge” to permit the trial court to find, by a greater weight of the evidence, that Davis dealt in stolen property and provided false verification of ownership to a pawn broker. However, we emphasize that our conclusion implies only that the state satisfied the lower standard of proof in probation violation hearings. See, e.g., State v. Jenkins, 762 So. 2d 535, 536 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (“To meet its burden in a violation of probation proceeding, the state need only demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the subject offense.”).
However, we agree with Davis that the state failed to prove that he violated his probation by failing to report to the probation office. While the probation officer made some passing statements regarding his inability to contact Davis, the probation officer’s testimony never actually established that Davis failed to file any required monthly reports. Thus, we remand this case to the trial court to strike the improper finding that Davis violated the condition of his probation requiring him to make monthly reports.
Because we affirm the trial court’s findings that Davis committed new violations of the law, which were more serious than the “failure to report” violation, there is no need for the trial court to reconsider the revocation of Davis’ probation. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 789 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). However, we direct the trial court to enter an amended order of revocation, deleting the reference to the violation for failure to report.
Affirmed and remanded.
GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mitchell v. State, 270 So. 3d 562 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…2011). However, a trial court’s finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation is reviewed for competent substantial evidence, and the trial court’s decision to revoke probation is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Davis v. State, 945 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). Unlike Del Valle, which involved the payment of restitution and court costs, the requirements of conditions one and twenty-eight were not monetary obligations. They required appellant to obtain an evaluation and to a…
-
McKINNON v. State, 85 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…of his probation. However, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that he violated condition two. Because there was sufficient evidence supporting the judgment and sentence revoking McKinnon’s probation, we affirm. See Davis v. State, 945 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming order revoking probation where hearing evidence supported finding of new law violations, even though there was insufficient evidence he failed to report). At the hearing, the court orally announced McKinnon violated c…
Authorities Cited
- Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- State v. Jenkins, 762 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Baker v. State, 789 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)