JOHNIE JAMES LATHAM, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
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.
The court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation hearings and that a transcript suffices for the written statement of evidence required for revocation.
Latham pled nolo contendere to grand larceny, was placed on probation, and later charged with violation of probation. Following a hearing, his probati…
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 Gagnon V. Scarpelli cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Latham was charged with grand larceny. He pled nolo contendere. The trial court withheld adjudication and placed him on probation. Approximately eight months later, Latham was charged with violation of probation. Following a hearing, the court found that he had violated the terms of his probation. Latham was adjudicated guilty of grand larceny and sentenced to three years imprisonment. He appeals.
Latham’s contention that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress is without merit. The exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation hearings. Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1976).
Latham’s argument that the trial court erred in failing to state in writing the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking Latham’s probation is without merit. The Circuit Court is a court of record, therefore, the court reporter’s transcript of the probation revocation hearing provides an opportunity for review of the revocation hearing superior to the written statement of evidence and reasons required by Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). We have a full transcript of the revocation hearing before us in this appeal.
Lastly, Latham urges that the court erred in revoking his probation because the State failed to identify him at the hearing. We have read the transcript of the revocation hearing and though the identification of Latham was not as formal as would be required at a trial, at a revocation hearing which does not require strict adherence to substantive and procedural rights, it was sufficient.
We affirm the judgment.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Dodd, 396 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…herefore this opinion as well appear to be contrary to Croteau, which Grubbs cites but does not overrule, and to the appellate decisions which followed Cro-teau prior to Grubbs. Shipp v. State, 349 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and Latham v. State, 360 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Therefore, to permit employment of the supreme court’s discretionary jurisdiction under Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(a)(2)(A)(iv), we “expressly” state that this opinion, while in accord with Grubbs, directly conflicts with the Croteau de…1 / 2
-
Drayton v. State, 710 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…l. As we have previously held, the transcript of the hearing on the violations provides “an opportunity for review of the revocation hearing superior to the written statement of evidence and reasons required by Gagnon v. Scarpelli” Latham v. State, 360 So. 2d 127, 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (quoting Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)). The transcript of the hearing, the court’s oral findings, and the written order satisfy due process requirements, since they “create a record sufficient…
-
Nicolaas Mathias Huppertz v. State, 399 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…pressly state that this decision is in direct conflict with the earlier supreme court decision in Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla.1976), and certify a direct conflict with Shipp v. State, 349 So. 2d 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) and Latham v. State, 360 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Reversed. .Three other violations which were alleged in the affidavit were expressly abandoned by the state at the hearing. Their inclusion in the order of revocation was therefore obviously erroneous. Hence, the findings of v…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973)
- Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1976)