ASHTON GOMEZ, 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.
Ashton Gomez appealed his probation revocation sentence, challenging both the trial court's jurisdiction to revoke probation on certain counts and whether he validly admitted to probation violations. The court affirmed that the trial court had jurisdiction but reversed and remanded because the record did not establish that Gomez actually admitted to the alleged violations.
The trial court had jurisdiction to revoke probation on Counts 5-8 because Gomez's probation on all counts was reinstated in December 2012 for an additional three years. However, the probation revocation must be reversed and remanded for a new hearing because the record does not establish that Gomez ever actually admitted to the alleged probation violations.
[1] A trial court has jurisdiction to revoke probation when a defendant is reinstated to probation for an additional term after admitting to violations.
[2] A probation revocation hearing is invalid if the record does not establish that the defendant admitted to the alleged probation 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“the record reflects that on December 17, 2012, appellant was reinstated to probation on those counts, as well as on all other counts of his original charges, when he admitted violating probation and the trial court orally pronounced that it was reinstating appellant to a modified probation for an additional three years”
Establishes basis for trial court's jurisdiction to revoke probation on Counts 5-8
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAshton Gomez was sentenced on March 13, 2016 following revocation of his probation. On December 17, 2012, Gomez was reinstated to probation on Counts …
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 Jurisdiction To Revoke Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
Ashton Gomez was sentenced on March 13, 2016 following revocation of his probation. He appeals the judgment of convictions and sentences, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation on certain counts (Counts 5-8), because his probation on those counts had expired. We affirm on this issue because the record reflects that on December 17, 2012, appellant was reinstated to probation on those counts, as well as on all other counts of his original charges, when he admitted violating probation and the trial court orally pronounced that it was reinstating appellant to a modified probation for an additional three years. The trial court thus had jurisdiction to revoke appellant’s probation on those contested counts.
We reverse revocation of appellant’s probation, however, and remand for a new hearing on the alleged probation violations. Appellant maintains that, although he was scheduled for sentencing, he never actually admitted to the allegations of violation of probation at a change of plea hearing, and the record on appeal does not establish otherwise, despite efforts by the parties to provide this court with a transcript of a hearing on his change of plea or a legally sufficient substitute therefor. See Randall v. State, 741 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (where there was nothing in the record to show that the defendant ever entered a knowing admission to the alleged violations of probation, the defendant was entitled to a new hearing); Leonard v. State, 391 So.2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (where appellate court was unable to determine from the record whether the probationer ever actually pleaded guilty, not guilty, or nolo contendere to the violation of probation charges, the court set aside the judgments of guilt and sentence and remanded for another hearing on allegations of violation of probation).
Reversed and Remanded for farther proceedings.
FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Randall v. State, 741 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Leonard v. State, 391 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)