DAVID BROWN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Revocation of probation for violation of a drug treatment condition is affirmed, but the revocation order must be amended to remove references to unproven payment condition violations.
[1] Probation revocation orders must reflect only the violations actually proven at the hearing; references to unproven violations should be struck on remand even where the r…
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“the revocation order should reflect only the violations actually proven, so we remand for the trial court to strike reference to the unproven violations of the payment conditions.”
Court's holding on remand regarding scope of revocation order
David Brown was placed on probation for possession of flakka. The trial court revoked his probation, citing three violations: a drug treatment conditi…
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 Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Appellant was placed on probation for possession of PVP, a controlled substance commonly known as flakka. The trial court revoked appellant’s probation after finding that he had willfully violated three conditions: a drug treatment condition and two payment conditions. Only the drug treatment violation was proven at the hearing, while the two payment conditions were not discussed at all. Appellant raises arguments on appeal regarding all three conditions. We find his argument as to the drug treatment violation without merit and affirm.
However, we remand because the trial court’s revocation order improperly refers to the unproven payment condition violations. Because the trial court’s revocation of probation is supported by evidence of one violation—the violation of the drug treatment condition—and it is “clear that the trial court would have revoked based solely on” that violation, we affirm. See Haygood v. State, 687 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, the revocation order should reflect only the violations actually proven, so we remand for the trial court to strike reference to the unproven violations of the payment conditions. See Matos v. State, 956 So. 2d 1240,
2
1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Affirmed and remanded with instructions. DAMOORGIAN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haygood v. State, 687 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Matos v. State, 956 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Seeber v. State, 956 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)