WILLIAM NORRIS, 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.
William Norris appeals the revocation of his probation in two cases based on findings of violating probation. The appellate court reversed the conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor because the trial court relied on the wrong statute, and remanded for reconsideration under the proper statute while affirming other violations.
The trial court fundamentally erred in relying on section 562.11(l)(a)l. for its finding of violation of probation because that conduct was not charged and is not the statute defining contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The court reversed the finding regarding contributing to the delinquency of a minor and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the issue under the proper statute, section 827.04(3).
[1] A trial court commits fundamental error when it relies on a statute for a finding of probation violation when the conduct proscribed by that statute was not charged.
[2] A probation violation finding based on the elements of an unrelated statute, rather than the statute alleged in the affidavit of violation, is erroneous.
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“Because the conduct proscribed in section 562.11(l)(a)l. was not charged, the trial court fundamentally erred in relying on this statute for a finding of violation of probation.”
Establishes the core legal error that the trial court applied the wrong statute to determine the probation violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNorris was on probation in two cases when the trial court found he violated probation by engaging in conduct proscribed in section 562.11(l)(a)l., Flo…
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 Contributing To The Delinquency Of A Minor cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, William Norris, appeals the revocation of his probation in two cases and the resulting imposition of new sentences for his underlying offenses. In both cases, the trial court found that Appellant violated his probation by engaging in the conduct proscribed in section *231562.11(l)(a)l., Florida Statutes (2009), among other violations. Although the court made this finding in reference to the allegation in the affidavit of violation of probation that Appellant committed the criminal offense of “Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor,” the record establishes that the court relied on the elements of an unrelated statute, section 562.11(l)(a)l., and not section 827.04, which defines contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Because the conduct proscribed in section 562.11(l)(a)l. was not charged, the trial court fundamentally erred in relying on this statute for a finding of violation of probation. See Bishop v. State, 21 So.3d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
The trial court has yet to consider whether Appellant contributed to the delinquency of a minor under the applicable statute. We, therefore, reverse the finding that Appellant contributed to the delinquency of a minor and remand for consideration of this issue under section 827.04(3), while affirming the remaining violations. If the trial court finds no violation of section 827.04(3), it is directed to consider whether Appellant’s probation should be revoked and the same sentences imposed based on the remaining violations alone. See Hostetter v. State, 82 So.3d 1217, 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). We also direct the trial court to enter a written order of revocation of probation in case number 07-2267. See Leggs v. State, 27 So.3d 155,155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
PADOVANO, ROWE, and RAY, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lakeisha Shayolanda Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- State v. Hudson, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Bishop v. State, 21 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Hostetter v. State, 82 So. 3d 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)