Beard v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Beard v. State

684 So. 2d 344, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13426, 1996 WL 734847

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 26, 1996

DocketNo. 96-900

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 684 So. 2d 344 (Beard v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beard v. State, 684 So. 2d 344, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13426, 1996 WL 734847 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, as modified, the order of the trial court which revoked defendant Johnny Beard’s probation for numerous violations of the conditions of his probation, including failing to report to his probation officer, changing residences without notification and failing drug screening tests. See, McLaurin v. State, 585 So.2d 473, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(proof of failure to file monthly reports to probation officer alone an adequate ground to support revocation); Brookshire v. State, 473 So.2d 14, 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)(evidence of failure to file monthly reports and failure to notify probation officer of a change in residence supports revocation).

The state correctly concedes, however, that two of the violations listed in the written order, failure to complete the Domestic Intervention Program and failure to report to the T.A.S.C. drug treatment program, were not proven at the evidentiary hearing on probation revocation. Therefore, we strike those two items from the written order.

Affirmed as modified.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm, as modified, the order of the trial court which revoked defendant Johnny Beard’s probation for numerous violations of the conditions of his probation, including failing to report to his probation officer, changing residences without notification and failing drug screening tests. See, McLaurin v. State, 585 So.2d 473, 474 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(proof of failure to file monthly reports to probation officer alone an adequate ground to support revocation); Brookshire v. State, 473 So.2d 14, 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)(evidence of failure to file monthly reports and failure to notify probation officer of a change in residence supports revocation).

The state correctly concedes, however, that two of the violations listed in the written order, failure to complete the Domestic Intervention Program and failure to report to the T.A.S.C. drug treatment program, were not proven at the evidentiary hearing on probation revocation. Therefore, we strike those two items from the written order.

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

684 So. 2d 344, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13426, 1996 WL 734847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beard-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack