PRENTICE STRINGFIELD, 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.
Prentice Stringfield appeals the revocation of his probation based on driving with a suspended license. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, reversed the revocation, finding that the State failed to prove Stringfield's knowledge of the license suspension, an essential element of the alleged probation violation.
The trial court erred in revoking Stringfield's probation because the State failed to prove an essential element of driving with a suspended license—the defendant's knowledge of the suspension. A violation of probation must be both willful and substantial and supported by competent, substantial evidence. Since the State only proved two of three required elements, it failed to establish a new law violation.
[1] A violation of probation must be both willful and substantial before a defendant's probation may be revoked.
[2] The state must establish a willful and substantial violation of probation by the greater weight of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A violation of probation must be both willful and substantial before a defendant's probation may be revoked, and the state must establish a willful and substantial violation by the greater weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard the State must meet to revoke probation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStringfield's probation was revoked after the trial court found he committed a new law violation by driving a motor vehicle with a suspended license. …
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 Willful And Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
Prentice Stringfield appeals the orders revoking his probation and sentencing him to fifteen years in prison. The trial court revoked Appellant's probation upon finding that he committed a new law violation by driving a motor vehicle while his license was suspended. Because there was no evidence that Appellant knowingly drove with a suspended or revoked license in violation of and as defined by section 322.34, Florida Statutes (2017), we find that the State failed to prove a willful, substantial violation of probation. Accordingly, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate Appellant's probation.
"A violation of probation must be both willful and substantial before a defendant's probation may be revoked," and "the state must establish a willful and substantial violation by the greater weight of the evidence." Stanley v. State , 922 So.2d 411, 413-14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). A lower *1128court's finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Knight v. State , 187 So.3d 307, 310 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). To prove the crime of driving with a suspended license, the State must establish three elements: (1) the defendant's driver's license was suspended at the relevant time, (2) the defendant's knowledge of the license suspension, and (3) the defendant was actually driving. Prater v. State , 161 So.3d 489, 491 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).
While the State proved the first and third elements, it failed to prove Appellant's knowledge of the license suspension. "The element of knowledge is satisfied if the person has been previously cited ... or the person admits to knowledge of the cancellation, suspension, or revocation; or the person received notice ...." § 322.34(2), Fla. Stat. (2017). The State does not argue that Appellant was previously cited or that he admitted to knowledge. The State hypothesized that Appellant should have been notified of the suspension in one of several ways; however, it failed to offer competent, substantial evidence that notice was provided through any of the means suggested by the State. Thus, the State failed to prove Appellant's knowledge of the license suspension, and, consequently, failed to establish a new law violation. Therefore, the lower court erred in revoking Appellant's probation. We reverse and remand with instructions for the lower court to restore Appellant to probation.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
EVANDER, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Causey v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…(2017), the State must establish three elements: “(1) the defendant’s driver’s license was suspended at the relevant time, (2) the defendant’s knowledge of the license suspension, and (3) the defendant was actually driving.” Stringfield v. State, 254 So. 3d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). As for the knowledge requirement, the statute provides: The element of knowledge is satisfied if the person has been previously cited as provided in subsection (1); or the person admits to knowledge of the cancellation, su…
-
Del Corral v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- H.A.G. v. State, 922 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Davell Kavon Knight v. State, 187 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Prater v. State, 161 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)