CHRISTOPHER MAURICE JONES, 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.
The appellate court reversed a probation violation finding because the state failed to present sufficient evidence that the probationer possessed drug paraphernalia. The court emphasized the state's burden to prove violations with competent evidence.
No, the state failed to present sufficient competent, substantial evidence that Jones possessed drug paraphernalia. Therefore, the trial court erred in finding a violation of probation.
[1] The State bears the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of probation by competent evidence.
[2] A finding of probation violation requires competent, substantial evidence to support the alleged violation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 State bears the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation by competent evidence.”
Establishes the standard of proof required for probation violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChristopher Jones was on probation for burglary. The state alleged he violated probation by possessing drug paraphernalia (a pipe). Jones had otherwis…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
SAWAYA, J.
Christopher Maurice Jones appeals the judgment and sentence imposed after the trial court found him guilty of violating condition nine of his probation, which prohibited Jones from possessing drug paraphernalia. Jones was initially placed on probation after he entered a guilty plea to burglary of a dwelling. Adjudication of guilt was withheld, and he was placed on five years’ probation. The record reveals that Jones was a model probationer: he completed all conditions of his probation, including community service, payment of costs, negative drug screens, and holding a job. After the trial court found Jones violated his probation by possessing a pipe allegedly used for smoking cannabis, Jones was adjudicated guilty of the burglary offense, sentenced to time served, and his probation was reinstated.
After thoroughly reviewing the entire record, we conclude there is no competent, substantial evidence that Jones possessed drug paraphernalia. Gauthier v. State, 949 So. 2d 326, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (“The State bears the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation by competent evidence.” (citing Stewart v. State, 926 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Robinson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005))). As an example of how deficient the evidence is in this case, not only did the State fail to produce the pipe at trial, but also the State failed to prove the specific allegation contained in the Affidavit of Violation of Probation that testing showed cannabis residue on the pipe. The latter failure was due to the fact that no testing of any kind was ever conducted by the State. In fact, there was no evidence or testimony presented that there was any cannabis residue on the pipe. At best, the evidence established that Jones possessed a pipe, which is neither a crime nor a violation of his probation.
Accordingly, we reverse the order finding that Jones violated his probation and the order adjudicating him guilty of the burglary offense.
REVERSED.
PALMER, C.J. and COHEN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Stewart v. State, 926 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Gauthier v. State, 949 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)