NICHOLAS STEVE MALAMATOS
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.
A probation revocation order may be affirmed based on proof of one willful and substantial violation even if another alleged violation lacks sufficient evidentiary support and must be stricken.
[1] A probation revocation order will be affirmed when the trial court finds a willful and substantial violation of at least one condition of probation.
[2] A probation revocation order must be remanded for correction when the trial court makes a finding of violation on a condition not supported by the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Bryant's failure to submit documentation of his community service hours cannot support a finding that he violated condition 27 of his probation, which requires only actual performance of the work itself.”
Court citing precedent regarding what evidence can support probation violation findings
Malamatos was on probation with multiple conditions. The trial court found he violated both condition 5 and condition 8 of his 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 Willful And Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Nicholas Malamatos appeals from the order revoking his probation. We affirm the order without comment based on the trial court's finding that Malamatos willfully and substantially violated condition 5 of his probation. However, we remand for the trial court to strike the finding that Malamatos violated condition 8 of his probation and to enter a corrected revocation order. See King v. State, 915 So. 2d 764, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (concluding that the State failed to meet its burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of the community service hours condition of probation, affirming the revocation of probation, and remanding for the trial court to strike the finding that appellant violated the community service hours condition); see also Bryant v. State, 931 So. 2d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("Bryant's failure to submit documentation of his community service hours cannot support a finding that he violated condition 27 of his probation, which requires only actual performance of the work itself.").
Affirmed but remanded for entry of a corrected probation revocation order. KHOUZAM, BLACK, and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- King v. State, 915 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Brown v. Nelda Jane Brown, 931 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Bryant v. State, 931 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)