HAROLD MANESS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2014-05-09
No. 2D13-503
Altenbernd, J., Silberman, J., Morris, J.
138 So. 3d 600 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2014)

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.

Synopsis

Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation but remanded to correct the revocation order, which falsely stated the defendant admitted to violations when he actually denied them at the hearing.


Holding

A probation revocation order must be corrected when it falsely states the defendant admitted to violations when the hearing transcript shows the defendant explicitly denied the violations.


Headnotes

[1] A probation revocation order must accurately reflect the record and cannot state that a defendant admitted to violations when the hearing transcript demonstrates the defe…

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 intelligence

Key Quotes

“when asked whether he admitted or denied violating probation he explicitly answered "I deny it."”

The court noted that the hearing transcript clearly showed Maness denied the violations, contradicting the revocation order's statement that he admitted them.

Facts & Procedural History

Harold Maness was on drug offender probation. At a revocation hearing, when asked whether he admitted or denied violating probation, Maness explicitly…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Harold Maness appeals his judgment and sentence entered following a violation of probation. We affirm the judgment and sentence without discussion. We remand, however, with instructions that the court remove certain language from the order of revocation of drug offender probation. In paragraph 2 the order reads: “At hearing, the defendant admitted to all the allegations of violations of probation.” In paragraph 3, the order states “the Court accepts the admissions to the violations, finds the violations to be willful and substantial, and revokes and terminates the defendant’s probation.” A review of the hearing transcript reveals that Mr. Maness did not admit to violating probation. To the contrary, when asked whether he admitted or denied violating probation he explicitly answered “I deny it.” Mr. Maness presented a defense at'the hearing and testified on his own behalf. He claimed that his actions — which eventually triggered revocation — were justified because he did not believe that he could fulfill the original terms of his probation. He did not, however, wilfully admit to violating probation.

On remand, the court shall remove from the order of revocation of drug offender probation paragraph 2, and amend paragraph 3, to reflect that Mr. Maness did not admit violating probation.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw