ANTHONY SCOTT MIDDLETON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation based on leaving county and new offenses, but remanded to strike the firearm possession violation finding where no evidence showed Middleton possessed a firearm.
A probation revocation may be affirmed on valid grounds while remanding to strike findings unsupported by evidence.
[1] A probation revocation may be affirmed on one valid ground while remanding to strike findings of violation unsupported by evidence, even when other violations independent…
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“Because the State met its burden of proof as to the new law violation of grand theft motor vehicle, we affirm the revocation of probation and resulting sentences. However, we remand for the trial court to strike the findings that Miffin violated [conditions 1, 3, and 10.”
Court citing Miffin v. State to support remanding to strike unsupported violation findings while affirming revocation on other grounds.
Middleton was serving probation in two circuit court cases when the trial court found him in violation for leaving his county of residence without per…
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 Possession Of A Weapon cases and more on FLexlaw
Anthony Middleton challenges the revocation of the probation he was serving in circuit court case numbers CRC05-00605 and CRC05-00736. Tjie tria} court found Middleton to be in violation of his probation for leaving his county of residence without permission, possessing a weapon, and committing new law offenses. We conclude that the trial court djd not err in finding that Middleton willfully and substantially violated his probation for leaving the county and committing the new offenses, and we affirm the revocation of his probation on those bases without further comment.
However, the trial court erred in finding Middleton in violation of condition five of his probation for possessing a weapon as that condition prohibited him from possessing a firearm. The State did not allege, and nothing in the record suggests, that Middleton possessed a firearm. As such, we remand for the trial court to strike the finding that Middleton violated condition five of his probation. See Miffin v. State, 19 So.3d 377, 379 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Because the State met its burden of proof as to the new law violation of grand theft motor vehicle, we affirm the revocation of probation and resulting sentences. However, we remand for the trial court to strike the findings that Miffin violated [cjonditions 1, 3, and 10.” (citation omitted)).
Affirmed but remanded.
WALLACE and SLEET, JJ., Concur.