ESSCO BROWN, 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.
Appellant's probation revocation was reversed because the trial court failed to conduct a proper hearing as required by Florida Statute ch. 948 before revoking probation.
A probation revocation hearing must comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Statute ch. 948, including proper notice and a hearing before revocation.
[1] A probation revocation requires a hearing with proper notice as mandated by Florida Statute ch. …
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 intelligenceBrown pleaded guilty to breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny in July 1970 and was placed on probation with adjudication withheld.…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal seeks reversal of a judgment of conviction, sentence and revocation of probation, all' entered in the Court of Record in and for Brevard County, Florida. Appellant, on July 12, 1970, had been charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny. After first pleading not guilty, he later changed his plea to guilty of the lesser included offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit petit larceny. The Court accepted this plea, withheld adjudication of guilt, and entered an order placing Appellant on probation.
On April 17, 1972, Appellant was charged with violating his probation, and on hearing his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to confinement for a period of five years.
Appellant has framed three points on appeal, but only point III need be considered since Appellee concedes it to be well taken and concludes in its brief that the judgment of conviction and sentence must be reversed for a new hearing on probation violation. We agree.
*584A review of the record reveals that the instant case falls squarely within the holding of Hooks v. State, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 459. No hearing, as contemplated by Florida Statute ch. 948, was held. The cause must be returned to the Court below for a proper hearing, after the required notice, on probation violation.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…7 (1947) it was said that due process “was met when the appellant was brought before the court for examination.” . Cases like Mato v. State, 278 So. 2d 672 (3 DCA Fla.1973); Machwart v. State, Fla. App.1969, 222 So. 2d 38, and Brown v. State, 1973, 281 So. 2d 583, demonstrate that state courts in Florida are no less interested than federal courts in the due process aspects of probation revocation hearings. . The purpose of the hearing is to satisfy the conscience of the court as to whether the terms of the…
Authorities Cited
- Hooks v. State, 207 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)