DION GREEN, 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 a trial court cannot enhance probation terms absent proof of a violation, nor can it order additional restitution under such circumstances.
Appellant was placed on non-reporting probation and paid his share of restitution. Without an affidavit of violation, the trial court ordered him back…
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 Probation Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse an order modifying the terms of Appellant’s probation. Appellant was initially sentenced to community control followed by probation, on multiple charges of burglary and grand theft. He was ordered, together with his codefendant, to pay restitution in the sum of $2,235.00. The codefend-ant paid the full $2,235.00 and Appellant also paid one-half of that sum to the victim. Appellant was subsequently placed by the court on “administrative” (non-reporting) probation.
No affidavit charging a violation of probation was ever filed, nor is it contended that Appellant had violated probation. Nevertheless, at a hearing called to resolve restitution questions raised by the victim and the state, the trial court ordered Appellant returned to reporting status, to undergo random urinalysis, and to pay another $1,117.50.
The state does not dispute that the court erred by ordering payment of the additional restitution and generally, absent proof of a violation, a court may not subsequently enhance the terms and conditions of probation. Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1991). See also Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1994).
The state’s only argument appears to be that Appellant should not have been placed on an “administrative” probation by the trial court to begin with. However, the state did not appeal from the prior order reducing the terms and extent of Appellant’s probation. We therefore assume, for this appeal, the validity of the reduced level of probation and need not determine whether a trial court has jurisdiction to place a probationer on an “administrative” probation.1
Reversed and remanded to reinstate Appellant’s non-reporting probation.
DELL, C.J., and KLEIN, J., concur. . However, it is clear that section 948.03(5) does provide for rescission and modification of the terms and conditions of probation by the court at any time, and section 948.05 does authorize the court to discharge a probationer.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Usatch v. State, 647 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…r failure to make restitution “to the best of her ability,” as required, we accept the state’s confession of error that the order under review must be reversed as erroneously entered and the defendant’s original probation reinstated. Green v. State, 638 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The order appealed from is reversed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to reinstate the defendant’s original adjudication of guilt and ten-year probation. REVERSED AND REMANDED. GLICKSTEIN and FA…
-
Predrag Pete Loncar v. State, 27 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…no longer part of Loncar’s probation. Therefore, the circuit court should have compared the State’s requested modification to Loncar’s current probation order as modified by the January 22, 2008, order which removed condition 51. See Green v. State, 638 So. 2d 1006, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (analyzing the State’s request to modify the defendant’s probation to reporting status against the trial court’s prior order modifying defendant’s probation to administrative or nonreporting status; holding that the trial c…
Authorities Cited
- Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1994)
- Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1991)