KALVIN HOLMES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Holmes challenges the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by compelling him to identify himself as the probationer. The Florida appellate court affirmed the revocation, holding that probation revocation hearings are informal proceedings where identification is not a testimonial admission protected by the self-incrimination privilege.
The court held that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not infringed. Probation revocation hearings are informal proceedings conducted to determine whether the conditions of the suspended sentence have been violated, not criminal proceedings. Requiring a probationer to identify himself as the probationer does not require him to admit to facts demonstrating a violation of probation conditions and thus does not constitute compulsory self-incrimination.
[1] A probation revocation hearing is not criminal in nature, and a defendant probationer does not have the right of a criminally accused not to testify.
[2] The privilege against self-incrimination protects an accused from being compelled to admit guilt, but does not extend to simple identification.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 constitutional privilege against self-incrimination relates to protecting an accused from the process of extracting from his own lips against his will an admission of guilt.”
Establishes the core purpose and scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolmes was placed on probation after pleading guilty to grand larceny. During a probation revocation hearing, the trial court asked Holmes whether he …
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 Florida Constitution Article I, Section 9 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant seeks review of an order of revocation of probation and sentence to two years in the state penitentiary.
Defendant contends the trial court erred in compelling him to identify himself as the individual who was placed on probation in the revocation proceeding sub judice, thereby violating his right against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the United States and Florida Constitutions.
This alleged error arises out of the following colloquy : ** “THE COURT: Kalvin Holmes, were you the man on probation in this case? “THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. • “THE COURT: Go ahead, proceed. “MRS.
SNYDER: I would object, Your Honor. “THE COURT: Objection overruled. “MRS.
SNYDER: I would also request that this Court enter a mistrial. “THE COURT: Denied.
Check the law.
You will find that the Court has every right to ask the Defendant on probation if he is the one that’s on probation.
If the Defendant refuses, he can go to jail for refusing to answer.” * * . * * * * The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination relates to protecting an accused from the process of extracting from his own lips against his will an admission of guilt.
Parkin v. State, Fla.1970, 238 So. 2d 817.
This protection against self-incrimination is applicable to any evidence, documentary or oral, that tends to convict one of a crime or subject him to penalty or forfeiture; whether the prosecution, penalty or forfeiture involves a civil or criminal act is not material.
Boynton v. State, Fla.1954, 75 So. 2d 211.
Nevertheless, even though a witness must judge the possible effect of his answer and should not be required to explain how the answer will incriminate him, it is the court which must determine under all the circumstances of the case, whether such will be its tendency from the question asked.
Ex parte Senior, 37 Fla. 1, 19 So. 652 (1896); Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713 (1899); Lorenzo v. Blackburn, Fla. 1954, 74 So. 2d 289.
Turning to the case sub judice, in light of the above principles of law, we first note that the purposes of a revocation of probation hearing which is informal are (1) to satisfy the conscience of the court as to whether the conditions of the suspended sentence have been violated, and (2) to give the person accused of violating the suspended sentence an opportunity to explain away the accusation against him.1 Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So. 2d 607 (1947); Bernhardt v. State, Fla.1974, 288 So. 2d 490.
Defendant-appellant already having pled guilty to the offense of grand larceny and having been granted the privilege to remain at liberty by judicial grace, it is clear that the probation revocation hearing was conducted as much for the benefit of the defendant as it was for the court.
The question, “were you the man on probation in this case?,” put to the defendant by the court in the case at bar in no way required the defendant to state the circumstances of any occurrence tending to demonstrate that he violated one or more conditions of his probation.
Rather, the question merely required him to identify himself as the probationer, an issue not in dispute in the case at bar. We simply do not believe that a revocation of probation hearing is “criminal” in the sense that defendant probationer had the right of the criminally accused not to testify.
Thus, we conclude that defendant’s constitutional guaranty against compulsory self-incrimination was not infringed upon.
In addition, an examination of the record on appeal demonstrates that there is independent testimony as to the identification of appellant contained therein.
Accordingly, the order of revocation of probation and sentence herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed. .
But even this does not contemplate a strict or formal trial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
State v. Heath, 343 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1977)…This is a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of a decision by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, reported in Heath v. State, 310 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Conflict is asserted with the Third District decision in Holmes v. State, 311 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Statements by the respective District Courts are conflicting although the factual circumstances are not identical. We find decisional conflict which requires resolution to avoid confusion. We have jurisdiction.1 The issue is whet…
-
Tsavaris v. Scruggs, 360 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1977)…cts, except in those exceptional situations where the public welfare demands different treatment for them and only *757 then when the exceptions are made plainly to appear in the governing statutes." (Emphasis supplied.) At 315. In Holmes v. State, 311 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), the court said: "The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination relates to protecting an accused from the process of extracting from his own lips against his will an admission of guilt. Parkin v. State, Fla. 1970, 238 S…
-
Dearing v. State, 388 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…74 F. 2d 582 (10th Cir. 1973). Moreover, the mere fact that one’s truthful answers to a particular question would result in a revocation of his probation does not alone implicate the fifth amendment privilege. Heath v. State, supra; Holmes v. State, 311 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Putting the two principles together, it follows that Dearing was correctly required to admit that he had pled guilty to, and thus that he had committed an offense which occurred during his probation. Holdren v. People, 168 Colo.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wallace v. State, 26 So. 713 (Fla. 1899)
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)
- Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 (Fla. 1947)
- Parkin v. State, 238 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1970)
- Ex parte Senior, 37 Fla. 1 (Fla. 1896)
- Gonzalez v. State, 159 Fla. 681 (Fla. 1947)
- Lorenzo v. Blackburn, 74 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1954)
- Boynton v. State of Fla. ex rel. Glenn C. Mincer, 75 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1954)