Creamer v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Creamer v. State

900 So. 2d 773, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6600, 2005 WL 1036440

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-3293

StatusPublished

This text of 900 So. 2d 773 (Creamer 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

Creamer v. State, 900 So. 2d 773, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6600, 2005 WL 1036440 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We have before us an appeal from a revocation of probation for Appellant’s failure to complete a substance abuse program. Appellant’s failure to complete the substance abuse program does not support revocation. The order did not provide a deadline for completing the treatment program, and there was sufficient time remaining in Appellant’s probationary term to comply with the order. Gamble v. State, 737 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Melecio v. State, 662 So.2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Green v. State, 620 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Before a trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation for faffing to complete a special condition of probation, the trial court must impose a time limit for completing the condition. In addition, a trial court may revoke probation if the defendant has failed to complete the program and insufficient time remains during the probationary period for compliance. Appellant’s probationary term has already expired, making this issue moot. However,. Appellant’s original sentence resulted in no adjudication, so the adjudication which the trial court entered following the revocation of probation must be. reversed. Cherry v. State, 718 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We therefore REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court to withdraw the order revoking probation and to set aside the adjudication and sentence.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and THOMAS, . JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We have before us an appeal from a revocation of probation for Appellant’s failure to complete a substance abuse program. Appellant’s failure to complete the substance abuse program does not support revocation. The order did not provide a deadline for completing the treatment program, and there was sufficient time remaining in Appellant’s probationary term to comply with the order. Gamble v. State, 737 So.2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Melecio v. State, 662 So.2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Green v. State, 620 So.2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Before a trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation for faffing to complete a special condition of probation, the trial court must impose a time limit for completing the condition. In addition, a trial court may revoke probation if the defendant has failed to complete the program and insufficient time remains during the probationary period for compliance. Appellant’s probationary term has already expired, making this issue moot. However,. Appellant’s original sentence resulted in no adjudication, so the adjudication which the trial court entered following the revocation of probation must be. reversed. Cherry v. State, 718 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We therefore REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court to withdraw the order revoking probation and to set aside the adjudication and sentence.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and THOMAS, . JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

900 So. 2d 773, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 6600, 2005 WL 1036440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/creamer-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack