VERLE VERNELLE PATRICK, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT),
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE (STATE)
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.
Patrick appeals his probation revocation based on a trial court order that extended his probation without notice or hearing. The court holds that the trial court lacked statutory authority to extend probation without the procedural protections required by section 948.06, Florida Statutes, and reverses the judgment and sentence.
The trial court lacked authority to find Patrick in violation of probation or extend the probation period without notice and hearing as required by section 948.06, Florida Statutes. The trial court's June 3, 1975 order was void, Patrick's probation expired on its original date of June 8, 1975, and the subsequent judgment and sentence must be reversed.
[1] A court cannot extend a period of probation without notice and a hearing to the defendant.
[2] A court lacks authority to find a defendant in violation of probation and extend the probation period without providing notice and a hearing.
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“Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1975), is the only authority for extension of the period of probation. This statute provides that a period of probation may be continued but only after notice and hearing to the defendant and a finding that the defendant violated his probation.”
Establishes that statutory authority for probation extension requires notice and hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePatrick pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed firearm and was placed on probation for two years on June 8, 1973, with adjudication of guilt 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 Notice And Hearing Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Patrick appeals from a judgment and sentence based on an order finding him in violation of his probation and modifying the period of probation.
Patrick contends that the trial court did not have authority, without notice and hearing to him, to find him in violation of his probation and did not have authority to modify the period. The State contends that the court had authority to extend the period and that the extension was actually a modification of the terms and conditions. We agree with Patrick and reverse.
Following a plea of guilty to the crime of carrying a concealed firearm, the court withheld adjudication of guilt, and on 8 June 1973 placed Patrick on probation for two years. On 3 June 1975, without notice or hearing, the court determined that Patrick had violated the conditions of his probation and extended the period of his probation for one year on authority of Section 948.03, Florida Statutes (1975).
On 24 May 1976, an affidavit was filed charging Patrick with violation of his probation. Patrick’s lawyer moved to dismiss the affidavit on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation because it did not have authority to enter the order of 3 June 1975 finding Patrick in violation of his probation and extending the period by one year. The court denied the motion, revoked the probation, adjudged Patrick guilty and sentenced him to prison.
Section 948.03, Florida Statutes (1975), does not authorize the extension of the period of probation. It merely sets forth eight specific terms and conditions of probation which the court may include in its order of probation, and authorizes the court to modify the terms and conditions at any time within the probation period.
Although Section 948.04, Florida Statutes (1973), authorized the court to extend the period of probation, this provision was deleted by the 1974 legislature.
Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1975), is the only authority for extension of the period of probation. This statute provides that a period of probation may be continued but only after notice and hearing to the defendant and a finding that the defendant violated his probation.
Because the court failed to give notice or a hearing to Patrick on the State’s charge of violation of probation, the court had no authority to find that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation nor did the court have authority to extend or continue the period of probation. Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1975). The court had no authority to enter its order of 3 June 1975, therefore, Patrick’s probation expired on 8 June 1975.
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence of 28 June 1975 are reversed and this case is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence and discharge the defendant.
BOYER, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1991)…agree with his probation officer to an extension of probation in lieu of compliance with the procedures of section 948.06. Carter v. State, 516 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gurganus v. State, 391 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Patrick v. State, 336 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).2 The trial court erred in this case by enhancing the terms of Clark’s community control without notice and hearing. Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1987), provides the sole means by which the court may place additional terms…
-
State v. Schafer, 583 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…So. 2d 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pesci v. State, 420 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). 4. That F.S. 948.06 authorizes modification of terms and conditions within the probationary period, but does not authorize extension of the period. Patrick v. State, 336 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). 5. That the Defendant cannot confer jurisdiction on the trial court by waiver, acquiescence, estoppel or consent. White v. State, 404 So. 2d 804 (Fla. [2d DCA] 1981). 6. That the contraband seized pursuant to this unlawful arr…
-
Holcombe v. State, 553 So. 2d 1337 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…to make agreements with probationers about the length of the term of proba [*1340] tion.... even a judge cannot extend the probationary term without a hearing, with due process, and having the accused violator before the court. In Patrick v. State, 336 So. 2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), this court held: Section 948.06, Florida Statutes ... is the only authority for the extension of probation. This statute provides a period of probation may be continued but only after notice and hearing to the defendant a…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence