THOMAS ANTINARELLI
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court may find a probation violation based on conduct for which the defendant was acquitted in a criminal trial because the preponderance of the evidence standard in probation proceedings is lower than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard in criminal cases.
[1] A trial court may find a probation violation based on conduct for which the defendant was acquitted in a criminal trial, as the preponderance of the evidence standard app…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a judge from finding a probation violation for the same conduct because the burdens [sic] of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in a probation violation case, it is by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Court citing Hill v. State, 890 So. 2d 485, 487 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
Antinarelli was sentenced in 1999 to eighteen years in prison followed by twelve years' probation. During probation, he was arrested on charges of sex…
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 Burden Of Proof In Probation Violation Hearings cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
THOMAS ANTINARELLI,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-3377
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed April 26, 2019
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, John M. Griesbaum, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Darnelle P. Lawshe, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison
L.
Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
COHEN, J.
Thomas Antinarelli appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following a violation of probation hearing. We affirm. In April 1999, Antinarelli was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to a split sentence of eighteen years in the Department of Corrections followed by twelve years’ probation. During his probationary period, he was arrested on charges of sexual battery,
2 false imprisonment, and violating his probation. An officer subsequently filed violation of probation affidavits alleging two violations of condition 5 based on the charges of sexual battery and false imprisonment, and a violation of condition 6 based on association with a person engaged in criminal activity.1 The court held Antinarelli’s violation of probation hearing in conjunction with his criminal trial. Although the jury acquitted Antinarelli on the sexual battery and false imprisonment charges, the trial court, utilizing the lower burden of proof, found that the State established the allegations in the violation of probation affidavits by a preponderance of the evidence. See Hill v. State, 890 So. 2d 485, 487 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a judge from finding a probation violation for the same conduct because the burdens [sic] of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in a probation violation case, it is by a preponderance of the evidence.” (citing Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999))). The court’s orders found Antinarelli “in violation of probation conditions (5(X3), 6).” Based on transcripts of the trial and sentencing hearing, the court found that Antinarelli violated his probation by committing two sexual offenses, falsely imprisoning the victim, and associating with a person engaged in criminal behavior. However, the portions of the orders stating “(5(X3)” improperly added an uncharged act, as Antinarelli was charged only with two violations of condition 5. E.g., Manis v. State, 30 So. 3d 586, 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (explaining that a trial court cannot revoke probation based on an act not charged within the violation of probation affidavit (citations omitted)). We view this only as
EVANDER, C.J. and EISNAUGLE, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Orion Hunter Manis v. State, 30 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- Eagle FL VI SPE, LLC v. Cypress Creek Plaza, LLC, 128 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Hill v. State, 890 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- ST. Denis v. State, 128 So. 3d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)