STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
JEFFREY HICKS, 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.
The State of Florida appealed a trial court order dismissing a violation of probation warrant for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court held that probation is tolled when a defendant absconds from supervision, and remanded for the trial court to determine whether the appellee in fact absconded.
The trial court abused its discretion in granting the dismissal. Probation is tolled when a defendant absconds from supervision, and therefore if the trial court finds that the appellee did abscond, the probationary period was tolled and the court retains jurisdiction to consider the violation of probation warrant.
[1] A probationary term is automatically tolled when a probationer absconds from supervision, and remains tolled until the probationer is again placed under supervision.
[2] A probationer absconds when they remove themselves from the controlling arm of the state by changing residence without consent and leaving their probation officer unaware…
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“[o]ur supreme court and three of our sister courts have recognized that probation is tolled when a defendant absconds from [probationary] supervision.”
Establishes the core legal principle that probation tolls upon absconding, drawn from multiple jurisdictions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJeffrey Hicks was on probation. The State filed a violation of probation warrant alleging that Hicks absconded by changing his residence without conse…
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 Absconding From Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
In this criminal appeal, the State of Florida appeals the trial court’s order granting Appellee Jeffrey Hicks’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The State argues that because it alleged in its violation of probation warrant (“VOP warrant”) that Appellee absconded, the trial court retained jurisdiction to consider the VOP warrant even after the expiration of Appellee’s probationary period.
The trial court abused its discretion by granting Appellee’s motion to dismiss. See State v. Balezos, 765 So.2d 819, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (applying abuse of discretion standard). The analysis and holding of our recent opinion in Williams v. State, 202 So.3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), are directly on point. There, the State’s VOP warrant, identical to the one here, suggested Appellee absconded by changing his residence without consent, and making his current whereabouts unknown. Id. at 921. As set forth in Williams, “[o]ur supreme court and three of our sister courts have recognized that probation is tolled when a defendant absconds from [probationary] supervision.” Id. at 920-21 (citing Francois v. State, 695 So.2d 695, 697 (Fla. 1997); Kimball v. State, 890 So.2d 495, 496 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Williams v. State, 529 So.2d 366, 367 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Ware v. State, 474 So.2d 332, 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)). Our Williams opinion clarified that this Court’s earlier opinion in Mobley v. State, 197 So.3d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) “does not overrule the case law recognizing that when a probationer absconds from supervision, the probationary period is tolled until the probationer is once more placed under probationary supervision.” Williams, 202 So.3d at 921.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court to determine under the totality of the circumstances if Appellee did *702in fact abscond from probationary supervision. If the trial court finds that Appellee did abscond, then Appellee’s probationary period was tolled until he was arrested and the trial court would have jurisdiction to consider the VOP warrant and any amendments to it.
Reversed, and remanded.
Taylor and Conner, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Destiney Lee Beery, 244 So. 3d 339 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Francois v. State, 695 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1997)
- Mobley v. State, 197 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Ware v. State, 474 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)
- Williams v. State, 202 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Madelyn D. Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Kimball v. State, 890 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Balezos, 765 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)