CLAUDETTE WARREN, 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.
The court held that a probation revocation based on an admitted violation is valid, even if other alleged violations were improperly considered.
Claudette Warren appealed the revocation of her probation, which was based on multiple alleged violations including petit larceny. She admitted to the…
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 Petit Larceny cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Claudette Warren appeals the revocation of her probation. Appellant was placed on probation for two years after she entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of receiving and concealing stolen property. She was subsequently charged with violating her probation. Appellant’s probation supervisor swore out an affidavit alleging that appellant violated her probation by failing to “live and remain at liberty without violating any law” in that she was arrested, pled guilty and was sentenced for petit larceny. The affidavit alleged three other violations of probation conditions.
At the probation revocation, appellant’s counsel announced she would admit the petit larceny charge and that it was agreed the other charges would be “dropped.” After determining appellant understood the consequence for her admission, the court accepted the admission and allowed appellant to explain the larceny conviction. Over defense counsel’s objection the court questioned appellant concerning the other charges. The court then revoked probation and sentenced appellant to two years with credit for time served. The order of revocation of probation listed all four allegations as appellant’s violations of probation.
Appellant contends that fundamental due process requires that a revocation be based only on the violation charged and argues that Crum v. State, Fla.App.4th, 1973, 286 So. 2d 268 is controlling. We disagree and affirm the revocation of probation and sentence. The affidavit of violation set forth a sufficient allegation of a violation, the petit larceny conviction. Appellant admitted violating her probation. However, while we note the trial court could properly inquire into appellant’s conduct, there apparently was an agreement to “drop” the other violations. Accordingly, in the interest of justice we instruct the trial court to strike the other violations from its order revoking probation.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 351 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)…his probation was dismissed by the trial judge. However, the order revoking appellant’s probation includes a violation of condition (4) as well as numerous other conditions. On remand, violation of condition (4) should be stricken. Warren v. State, 333 So. 2d 516 (Fla.2d DCA 1976). Moreover, the sentence recites appellant is to be given credit for time served in jail but does not specify the amount of that credit as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975). Brooks v. State, 349 So. 2d 794 (Fl…
Authorities Cited
- Crum v. State, 286 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)