MIGUEL ALEXANDER ALVAREZ FUENTES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Miguel Alexander Alvarez Fuentes appealed his probation revocation and twenty-year sentence. The appellate court affirmed the finding that he violated probation by committing uttering a forged instrument, but reversed the finding that he violated probation by failing to submit job application logs weekly, and remanded for entry of a proper written order of violation.
The court affirmed the violation based on the forged instrument offense but reversed the violation based on the failure to submit job application logs, finding that while the probation order required appellant to keep logs weekly, it did not require weekly submission. The court remanded for entry of a written order of violation based solely on the forged instrument conviction.
[1] A trial court's determination that a defendant violated probation by committing a new crime is affirmed if supported by competent substantial evidence.
[2] A probationer does not violate a condition requiring the keeping of weekly job application logs if the condition does not explicitly mandate weekly submission of those lo…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“while the order of probation required appellant to keep job application logs on a weekly basis, it did not require appellant to submit the job application logs on a weekly basis”
Establishes the distinction between keeping and submitting logs, forming the basis for reversing the technical violation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was sentenced in 2011 to five years' prison followed by five years' probation. He was released from prison in May 2013 and began probation. …
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 Technical Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion, and substitute the following opinion in its stead.
Appellant, Miguel Alexander Alvarez Fuentes, appeals from the trial court’s order adjudging him in violation of his probation, revoking his probation, and sentencing him to a total of twenty years in prison. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for entry of a written order of violation of probation.
In 2011, appellant entered a negotiated plea in five separate cases \ and was sentenced to five years’ state prison followed by five years’ probation. Appellant was released from prison in May of 2013, and commenced the probation portion of his sentence. As a standard condition of his probation, appellant was required to report monthly to his probation officer. On April 2, 2014, appellant’s probation was modified to include a requirement that appellant “keep job application log with minimum of 5 jobs per week.” Four weeks after appellant’s probation was modified, the State filed an affidavit alleging that appellant violated his probation by committing the crime of uttering a forged instrument on April 28, 2014. See section 831.02, Florida Statutes (2014). The affidavit also alleged that appellant violated his probation by failing to timely submit weekly job application logs to his probation officer.
We affirm the trial court’s determination that appellant violated his probation by committing the new crime of uttering a forged instrument, and reject appellant’s contention that there was not competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s determination in this regard.
However, we reverse the trial court’s determination that appellant violated, his probation by failing to submit to the probation officer, on a weekly basis, his job application logs. On appeal the State commendably conceded this was error; while the order of probation required appellant to keep job application logs on a weekly basis, it did not require appellant to submit the job application logs on a weekly basis.2
*958We also note that the trial court failed to enter a -written order of violation of probation. See Francique v. State, 172 So.Sd 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). On remand, the trial court shall enter a written order of violation of probation consistent with that portion of its oral, pronouncement that appellant violated' his probation by committing the crime of .uttering a forged instrument.
We find the remaining issues to be without merit.3
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berg v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Cohen v. State, 171 So. 3d 179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- McKENZIE v. State, 201 So. 3d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)