MONTIEZ LAMAR DONALDSON, 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.
The court reversed and remanded a probation revocation because the trial court failed to conduct an adequate admission colloquy, specifically failing to inform the defendant of the consequences of admitting the violation.
A trial court must conduct a minimum admission colloquy informing the probationer of the violation charges, right to counsel, and consequences of admission before accepting an admission to a probation violation.
[1] A trial court must conduct a minimum admission colloquy in probation violation proceedings that informs the probationer of the violation charges, right to counsel, and co…
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“At a minimum, the colloquy must inform the defendant of the allegations against him, his right to counsel, and the consequences of an admission or the right to a hearing and it shall afford him an opportunity to be heard.”
Establishing the minimum requirements for a valid admission colloquy in probation violation proceedings.
Donaldson's probation was revoked by the trial court without conducting an adequate admission colloquy that informed him of the consequences of his ad…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
In this appeal, Montiez Lamar Donaldson challenges the trial court’s revocation of his probation without conducting an adequate admission colloquy, including failing to inform Donaldson of the consequences of his admission. See Johnson v. State, 776 So.2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“[I]n accepting a guilty plea to a probation violation, the trial court must advise the probationer of the violation charges and, among other things, should tell the probationer of the potential consequences of a guilty plea.”); Johnson v. State, 107 So.3d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“At a minimum, the colloquy must inform the defendant of the allegations against him, his right to counsel, and the consequences of an admission or the right to a hearing and it shall afford him an opportunity to be heard.”). A remand is necessary when the trial court fails to conduct the minimum requirements for an admission colloquy. Johnson, 107 So.3d at 1154 (citing Balsinger v. State, 974 So.2d 592, 592-93 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Randall v. State, 741 So.2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). If, however, Donaldson “does not wish to enter an admission, the court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the violation allegations and, based on the evidence, determine whether the defendant violated the terms of his probation.” Johnson, 107 So.3d at 1154.
REVERSE AND REMAND.
WOLF, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Colley v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…f the allegations against him, his right to counsel, and the consequences of an admission or the right to a hearing and it shall afford him an opportunity to be heard.” Johnson v. State, 107 So. 3d 1153, 1154 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Donaldson v. State, 219 So. 3d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017); cf. Davis v. State, 187 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (reversing because of a deficient guilty-plea colloquy under rule 3.172(c), as well as a deficient VOP-admission colloquy); Haug v. State, 151 So. 3d 560, 561 (Fla. 1st DCA…1 / 2
-
Roxana Quintana v. Rodriguez Fam. Inv. P'ship, LLLP (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 776 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Balsinger v. State, 974 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Randall v. State, 741 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Raylan Johnson v. State, 107 So. 3d 1153 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)