DONALD ALAN MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
DONALD ALAN MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
356 So. 2d 19
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1978)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 14 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.
ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
ANSTEAD, J., dissents.
Dissent
ANSTEAD, Judge,
dissenting:
The appellant’s probation was revoked after he was charged with violating a condition of probation which prohibited him from operating a motor vehicle. When the appellant was placed on probation, his driver’s license was revoked and he was forbidden to drive. Subsequently, while his conviction was being appealed, he obtained a duplicate driver’s license and rented an automobile. He testified at the revocation hearing that he only obtained the duplicate license because it was required by the car rental agency and he did not drive the car himself but had others do so for him. During this time he was a patient in a private hospital. The only testimony about not driving the vehicle was a probation officer’s hearsay statement that a rental agency employee had told him that he observed the appellant driving. I do not believe that statement was sufficient to sustain a revocation of probation. Demchak v. State, 351 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. Dep't OF Prof'l Reg., 410 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)…the hearing officer’s recommended order just simply is not permitted for, in rejecting the hearing officer’s order, the agency must state with particularity which findings are rejected and why. Moore v. Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, 356 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 884 (Fla.1978); Harvey v. Nuzum, 345 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Further, the critical reason for requiring an administrative agency to state their conclusions and orders with specificity is to facilitat…
-
Brevard Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't v. Fla. Comm'n ON Human Relations & E.R. Brannon, Sr., 429 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…aring officer’s findings of fact without determining that they are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. This it cannot do. City of Umatilla v. Public Employees Relations Commission. See also Moore v. Florida Construction Industry Board, 356 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In its final order the Commission further stated: While the Hearing Officer made several findings of fact regarding Brannon’s work performance, the hearing officer neither found nor concluded that Bran-non was discharged for u…
-
S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Caluwe, 459 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…officer’s finding about the March 17th incident, the District abandoned its duty to state with particularity the reasons for modification or rejection of findings of fact. See § 120.57(1)(b)9; Moore v. Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, 356 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Moreover, the record does not show that the hearing officer’s finding was in fact unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. The District cites to no evidence showing that attendance at the meeting was mandatory and that Ca…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Demchak v. State, 351 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)