MICHAEL PARKS
v.
THE 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.
An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a judge from determining that a parole or probation violation has occurred based on the same conduct.
[1] An acquittal in a criminal prosecution does not preclude a finding of parole or probation violation based on the same conduct, as the standards of proof in parole violati…
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“An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the judge from determining that a parole or probation violation has occurred based on the same conduct.”
Morris v. State, cited by the court for the governing legal principle
Michael Parks appealed a circuit court's determination of a parole or probation violation. The violation was allegedly based on conduct that had resul…
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 Substantive Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed September 20, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1449 Lower Tribunal No. F10-6731
________________
Michael Parks,
Appellant,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Appellee.
An appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Miguel M. de la O, Judge. Michael Parks, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before EMAS, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975, 977 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the judge from determining that a parole or probation violation has occurred based on the same conduct.”); Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 2018) (“Florida courts have consistently treated conduct involving a new criminal offense, such as [appellant’s] illegal drug possession, as a substantive violation.”); Flagg v. State, 179 So. 3d 394, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“Where there has been a substantive violation, such as a new law offense, a previously designated youthful offender may be sentenced above the sixyear cap up to the statutory maximum for the underlying offenses.”); see also § 810.02(2), Fla. Stat. (2010).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Eustache v. State, 248 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 2018)
- Flagg v. State, 179 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)