CHARLES FRANKLIN FINLEY, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1978)
  …d that a final probation revocation proceeding must address two separate issues: (1) whether the probationer in fact committed the violation charged; and (2) whether the commission of the act warranted revocation. . For example, in Sukert v. State, 325 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), the probationer was denied due process when the state did not disclose to him certain “privileged” documents which were later used against him at the revocation hearing. . See, State v. Spratling, 336 So. 2d 361 (Fla.1976).…
• Cuciak v. State, 410 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1982)
  …that certain vital evidence used against him at the revocation proceeding was not disclosed, he may have a successful claim for violation of his procedural due process right. See Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183, 185 n. 6 (Fla.1978); Sukert v. State, 325 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The Supreme Court has recognized that there is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case and that Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), did not create such a general right. I…
• Cuciak v. State, 394 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
  …nguage was dictum, we cannot disregard it or the various cases dealing with discovery in violation of probation matters. See Suarez v. State, 377 So. 2d 769 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Cioeta v. State, 367 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and Sukert v. State, 325 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). With great reluctance, we conclude the language from Hines requires we rule that a defendant is entitled to discovery in violation of probation proceedings. Were we considering this without the Hines decision, we would hold other…

Authorities Cited

• Estep v. State, 318 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
• Thompson v. State, 278 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
• Pons v. State, 278 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)