MACON PEEPLES, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Macon Peeples appealed the revocation of his probation and subsequent entry of judgment and sentence. He challenged the trial judge's refusal to permit oral argument and the fact that a different judge signed the revocation order than the one who presided at the hearing. The court affirmed, finding no reversible error.
Neither alleged error constituted reversible error. The defendant was not denied the right to argument because argument was in fact presented, heard, and considered by the court over eight pages of the record. The fact that a different judge signed the revocation order did not prejudice the defendant because it merely carried into effect the ruling already made and pronounced in open court by the judge who presided at the hearing.
[1] A defendant is not denied the right to argument at a probation revocation hearing when argument is in fact presented and heard by the court, even if the judge initially s…
[2] An irregularity in a probation revocation order being signed by a judge other than the one who presided over the hearing is not reversible error if it merely carries into…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 contention of the appellant that he was denied the right of argument is not borne out by the record.”
Establishes that despite the judge's initial statement refusing argument, the record shows argument was actually presented and heard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was on probation related to a prior conviction. At a probation revocation hearing, the trial judge initially stated there would be no argume…
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 Due Process In Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is by the defendant from an order revoking his probation, and subsequent entry of judgment and sentence for the crime, to his conviction of which the probation related.
Appellant argues the judgment and sentence should be vacated, and a new trial granted on the probation hearing, because of refusal of the trial judge to permit argument of counsel following the presentation of evidence on the hearing for revocation of probation, and because the revocation order was signed by a judge other than the judge before whom the hearing was held.
The contention of the appellant that he was denied the right of argument is not borne out by the record.
On the hearing for revocation of probation, after the presentation of evidence when the attorney for the defendant announced intention to present argument, the trial judge stated there would be no argument, and pronounced a holding of guilt of the alleged violations of the probation. However, argument in fact was then made, covering eight pages in the record, and was heard by the court. At the conclusion thereof, without expressly so stating, the court adhered to its ruling, by terminating the proceeding without further comment thereon.
With regard to the point that a judge other than the one who heard the matter signed the order of revocation of probation, that irregularity did not operate to the prejudice of the defendant. That is so, because it did no more than to carry into effect the ruling which the trial judge who heard the matter had made and pronounced in open court. The consequent judgment and sentence were made by the judge who presided at the probation violation hearing. In this proceeding, the matters complained of by the appellant did not constitute reversible error. Washington v. State, Fla.App.1973, 284 So. 2d 236, 237; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972)
- Smith v. State, 284 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973)