ROBERT LEWIN, 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.
Robert Lewin appeals the revocation of his probation and five-year prison sentence. The court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke probation because an affidavit alleging only technical violations does not toll the probationary period, and Lewin's probation had expired before the revocation proceedings.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend and revoke Lewin's probation. An affidavit of violation alleging only technical violations does not toll the probationary period, and since Lewin's probation expired on December 13, 2014, the court could not extend or revoke it in April 2015.
[1] An affidavit of violation of probation alleging only technical violations, such as failure to pay restitution and/or probation-related fees, does not toll the probationar…
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to extend or revoke probation after the probationary period has expired.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“an affidavit of violation of probation which merely alleges technical violations, such as failure to pay restitution and/or probation related fees, and the accompanying arrest warrant based on those same violations, does not toll the probationary period”
Establishes the controlling legal principle from Mobley v. State that technical violation affidavits do not extend probation
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLewin pleaded no contest to grand theft and forgery charges and was sentenced to two years of probation on December 13, 2012. On November 12, 2014, on…
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 Tolling Of Probationary Period cases and more on FLexlaw
Robert Lewin appeals a final order revoking his probation and imposing a fivé-year prison sentence. We hold that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke Lewin’s probation and reverse and remand for the proceedings against him to be dismissed. Because of our decision on the jurisdictional issue, Lewin’s remaining arguments are rendered moot.
Lewin pleaded no contest to grand theft and forgery charges and, on December 13, 2012, was sentenced to two years of probation. On November 12, 2014, a month before Lewin’s probation was scheduled to expire, his probation officer filed an affidavit of violation of probation alleging that Lewin violated the terms of probation by: (1) failing to make restitution payments; (2) failing to pay drug testing fees; and (3) failing to pay costs of supervision. On that same day, the trial court issued a warrant for Lewin’s arrest based on the violations alleged in the affidavit.
On April 29, 2015, more than four months after Lewin’s probation was scheduled to expire, the trial court extended his probation and added two years of drug offender probation. Shortly thereafter, Lewin purportedly violated the terms of his extended probation and, following a hearing, the trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to five years in prison. This appeal follows.
In Mobley v. State, — So.3d-, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D912, D913, 2016 WL 1445595 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 13, 2016), cert. denied, No. SC16-936, 2016 WL 3149708 (Fla. June 6, 2016), we held that an affidavit of violation of probation which merely alleges technical violations, such as failure to pay restitution and/or probation related fees, and the accompanying arrest warrant based on those same violations, does not toll the probationary period. Based on Mobley, Lewin argues that his probation *92expired on December 13, 2014 and, therefore, the trial court was without jurisdiction to extend and subsequently revoke his probation. The State concedes error, and we agree.
Reversed and remanded for the proceedings against Lewin to be dismissed and for his sentence based on the violation of probation to be vacated.
LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.