SAMMIE GADSON, 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.
Sammie Gadson's probation was revoked based on a finding that he violated condition (7) by failing to report and make required payments. While the revocation itself is affirmed as supported by evidence, the appellate court remands to correct the written order, which improperly included findings of violations of conditions (1), (2), and (6) that were never litigated at the hearing.
The revocation of probation is affirmed because the evidence supports the finding that appellant violated condition (7), which constitutes a substantial violation sufficient to support revocation. However, the trial court erred in including findings of violations of conditions (1), (2), and (6) in the written order after restricting the hearing testimony to condition (7) alone.
[1] A probation revocation order is supported by a finding of a single substantial violation, even if other alleged violations are not proven.
[2] A trial court may restrict testimony at a probation revocation hearing to specific alleged violations.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Since the evidence supports the finding that appellant violated condition (7) and since this was a substantial violation sufficient to support the revocation order, the order of revocation and judgment and sentence are affirmed.”
Establishes that a single substantial probation violation is sufficient to sustain revocation, so the court affirms on that basis.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGadson was charged with eight different violations of his probation conditions. At the revocation hearing, the trial court restricted testimony and qu…
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 Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation, but remand for correction of the order of revocation.
Appellant was charged with eight different violations of the conditions of his probation. His probation supervisor presented testimony concerning all of the charged violations, but during defense counsel’s cross-examination of her, the trial court restricted the testimony to the charge of violating condition (7) in that he failed to report to his supervisor and make a payment toward the costs of his supervision as instructed. The court’s instruction was followed, and appellant’s testimony and the remainder of the questioning of the supervisor concerned only that charge. At the conclusion of the testimony, the trial court made an oral finding that appellant had committed that charged violation. The written order of revocation, however, recites a finding that appellant violated conditions (1), (2), (6), and (7).
Since the evidence supports the finding that appellant violated condition (7) and since this was a substantial violation sufficient to support the revocation order, the order of revocation and judgment and sentence are affirmed. See Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). However, the trial court could not properly find that appellant had committed the other violations recited in the probation order after restricting the testimony at the revocation hearing to the charge of violating condition (7).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed, but the cause is remanded with instructions to strike from the order of revocation the finding that appellant violated conditions (1), (2), and (6).
BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Burton v. State, 382 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…nscript of the probation violation hearing supports this concession. It is apparent that in reducing the order to writing some eight weeks later the trial court overlooked his limited findings at the hearing. This case is not unlike Gadson v. State, 368 So. 2d 429 (Fla.2d DCA 1979), wherein much the same oversight took place. Appellant also attacks the finding that he violated Condition # 2 requiring him to submit monthly reports. There is no merit to appellant’s contention in this regard. There was direct…
-
Wearen v. State, 570 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…4th DCA 1977). However, one of the grounds for violation being properly established, we affirm the order revoking probation. Casana v. State, 546 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Gadson v. State, 368 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).…
Authorities Cited
- Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)