SHADRICK BELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals an order of revocation of probation and sentence. As the state apparently recognizes the record does not support the violation on ground one. Kipp v. State, 657 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). We, therefore, strike that portion of the order. As there is sufficient evidence to support the violation on ground two, we affirm the order as to that ground. However, we reverse the revocation because contrary to the state’s contention, the record does not clearly show that the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence based on the valid ground alone. See Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), Accordingly, the revocation and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to determine whether defendant’s probation should be revoked and, if so, what sentence should be imposed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jarvis Gaines v. State, 800 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…giving an alias, and that therefore we should remand for reconsideration of the revocation and sentence. If it were true that the only viable violation, was for resisting without violence, we would remand for reconsideration. See e.g. Bell v. State, 773 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000). However, we think all of the violations found by the trial court were supported by the evidence, and that the proceedings afforded Gaines due process. Furthermore, even if the violation for resisting without violence were omitted…
Authorities Cited
- Byfield v. Nat'l Westminister Bank PLC, 657 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Joseph Middlebrooks & Assocs., Inc. v. Fyne-Kemp, 664 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)