ROGER E. VILLWOCK, III, 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.
Appellate court affirmed probation revocation based on willful violations for failing to report and changing residence without consent, but remanded to strike the unproven new offense of failing to register as a sex offender in Michigan and correct the order to reflect that violations were contested and proven by the State.
Probation revocation is affirmed where the State proved by preponderance of evidence that the probationer willfully and substantially violated probation by failing to report to his probation officer twice and changing residence without consent, even though the new offense allegation failed.
[1] When a probation revocation is based on multiple violations and the State fails to prove one violation, the revocation may be affirmed if the trial court clearly would ha…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVillwock was on probation for a sex offender registration offense. The State alleged he violated probation by committing a new offense of failing to r…
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 Sex Offender Registration cases and more on FLexlaw
Roger E. Villwock, III, appeals the revocation of his probation for the offense of failing to register as a sex offender. We agree with Villwock’s argument that the State failed to prove that Villwock violated his probation by committing the new offense of failing to register as a sex offender in Michigan. But the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Vill-wock willfully and substantially violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer on two different occasions and by changing his residence without his probation officer’s consent, and it is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked Villwock’s probation based on these three violations. See Tirado v. State, 69 So.3d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).
Therefore, we affirm the order revoking probation but remand for the trial court to strike the new law offense violation from the order of revocation. See id. We also note that the order of revocation states that Villwock “admitted to all the allegations of violations of probation” and that the court “accepted the admissions to the violations.” On remand, the trial court should correct the order to reflect that Villwock contested the violations and that the three violations were proven by the State.
Affirmed; remanded with instructions.
VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.