ROOSEVELT LINDSAY, JR., 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.
Roosevelt Lindsay appeals his adjudication of guilt for two third-degree felonies (forgery and uttering a forged instrument) following a probation violation hearing. The trial court found he violated probation but determined the violation was not willful and substantial, yet still adjudicated him guilty. The appellate court reversed, holding that without a willful and substantial violation, the trial court lacked authority to revoke probation or adjudicate guilt.
A trial court lacks authority to revoke probation or adjudicate a probationer guilty when it finds that the violation was not willful and substantial. To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.
[1] To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of prob…
[2] A trial court lacks the authority to revoke probation or adjudicate guilt if it finds that the probationer's violation was not willful and substantial.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.”
Establishes the legal standard required to support a finding of probation violation; the trial court's failure to meet this standard invalidated the adjudication of guilt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLindsay was originally adjudicated with withheld guilt for two third-degree felonies. At the probation violation hearing, the trial court found that h…
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 Uttering A Forged Instrument cases and more on FLexlaw
Roosevelt Lindsay, Jr., appeals a judgment adjudicating him guilty of two third-degree felonies (forgery of a written instrument and uttering a forged instrument) following a violation of probation hearing. Originally the trial court had withheld adjudication of guilt. After hearing the evidence at the probation hearing, the trial court found that he had violated a term of his probation, but also found that the violation was not willful and substantial. The state concedes that finding a violation was error.
While “[t]he trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine whether a probationer has violated a condition of probation,” Williamson v. State, 43 So.3d 843, 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), “[t]o establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.” Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (citing Salzano v. State, 664 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Thorpe v. State, 642 So.2d 629, 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). Whether conduct which could constitute a violation of probation was willful is a question of fact. See Riggins v. State, 830 So.2d 920, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). The trial court’s determination that appellant was not guilty of a willful and substantial violation of probation is amply supported by the record.
Because the trial court did not find Mr. Lindsay’s violation willful and substantial, it was without authority to revoke his probation or to adjudicate him guilty. See § 948.06(2)(e), Fla. Stat. (2009) (“If such probation or community control is revoked, the court shall adjudge the probationer or offender guilty of the offense charged and proven or admitted, unless he or she has previously been adjudged guilty....”). See also Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061, 1064 (Fla.1994).
Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1987), “provides the sole means by which the court may place additional terms on a previously entered order of probation or community control.” Clark v. State, 579 So.2d 109, 110 (Fla.1991). Before probation may be enhanced, a violation of probation must be formally charged and the probationer must be brought before the court and advised of the charge. Id. at 110-11; § 948.06(1), Fla.Stat. (1987). Absent proof of a violation, the court cannot change an order of probation by enhancing the terms. Clark, 579 So.2d at 110-11.
Id. In fact, as the trial court noted in ordering termination of probation, by the time of the revocation hearing, the probationary term had expired. Accordingly, we reverse the adjudication of guilt as to *640both offenses, forgery of a written instrument and uttering a forged instrument.
Reversed.
DAVIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells v. State, 60 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…ion, which prohibits “unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 18 years without another adult present who is responsible for the child’s welfare, who has been advised of the crime(s) of this case.” (Emphasis added). See Lindsay v. State, 54 So. 3d 638, 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (trial court has broad discretion to find violation of probation, but State must prove willful and substantial violation by preponderance of the evidence). Mr. Rastellini, who testified he saw Appellant in his yard holding a…
-
Knite v. State, 102 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…stances are Unlawfully Sold, Dispensed or Used” “ ‘To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.’ ” Lindsay v. State, 54 So. 3d 638, 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (quoting Van Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)). This means that where the State seeks to establish a violation based upon a defendant’s [*694] associating with persons engaged in criminal activity, th…
-
Lowe's Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs, 60 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…[*422] PER CURIAM. ■ Affirmed. See Miami-Dade County v. Dep’t Cmty. Affairs, 54 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA2011). KAHN, PADOVANO, and CLARK, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1994)
- VAN Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1991)
- Ricci M. Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Riggins v. State, 830 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Thorpe v. State, 642 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Monterrance Williamson v. State, 43 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)