FREDDICK LAMARK WOODSON, 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 court held that the defendant received due process at his probation revocation hearing, even though the probation officer did not testify, because sufficient evidence supported the revocation and the defendant knew the reason for it.
Freddick Woodson appealed the revocation of his probation for committing a new offense. The trial court sentenced him to five years in prison.…
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 Preservation Of Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Freddick Woodson appeals the revocation of his probation for committing a new offense. The trial court sentenced him to five years in prison. We affirm. In doing so, we reject without discussion Mr. Wood-son’s suggestion that he was not properly advised of his probationary terms. See State v. Green, 667 So.2d 959, 960-61 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that due process does not require defendant to receive verbal notice of standard probation conditions because all persons have constructive notice of state’s criminal statutes). We write briefly to explain that Mr. Woodson received due process at his revocation hearing.
“Due process requires that the State prove an alleged violation of probation at a hearing or that the defendant enter a knowing admission to a violation before the trial court revokes the defendant’s probation.” Balsinger v. State, 974 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Under section 948.06(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), the trial court must advise the probationer of the alleged violation. Balsinger, 974 So.2d at 593. Here, the probation officer did not testify, a circumstance that the trial court recognized as not “normal.” Nevertheless, our record reflects sufficient evidence to revoke Mr. Woodson’s probation. And, based on the testimony presented, there can be no question but that Mr. Woodson knew why the State sought revocation of probation. Mr. Woodson made no objection to not being specifically advised of the alleged violation at the start of the hearing. See § 924.051(3), Fla. Stat. (2007); Insko v. State, 969 So.2d 992, 1001 (Fla.2007) (holding that litigant must object at trial to preserve error for review).
Despite our affirmance, we remand for entry of a written order specifying the conditions of probation that Mr. Woodson violated.
Affirmed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Connell v. State, 321 So. 3d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…revoke probation, “[d]ue process requires that the State prove an alleged violation of probation at a hearing or that the defendant enter a knowing admission to a violation before the trial court revokes the defendant's probation.” Woodson v. State, 9 So. 3d 716, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (citation omitted); see McLean v. State, 990 So. 2d 1229, 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Lawson v. State, 941 So. 2d 485, 488 (Fla. 5th 3 DCA 2006). Importantly, “[t]o satisfy procedural due process, an opportunity to be heard mus…
Authorities Cited
- Insko v. State, 969 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 2007)
- State v. Green, 667 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Balsinger v. State, 974 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)