Dingess v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dingess v. State

8 So. 3d 444, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2849, 2009 WL 873536

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2009

Docket5D08-1173

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 So. 3d 444 (Dingess 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

Dingess v. State, 8 So. 3d 444, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2849, 2009 WL 873536 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

GRIFFIN, J.

Roger L. Dingess [“Dingess”] appeals the trial court’s judgment and sentence that followed a violation of probation [“VOP”] hearing. On appeal, Dingess argues that the State failed to carry its burden of establishing that he willfully and substantially violated conditions three and five of the order of probation.

We conclude the trial court did not err by determining that Dingess willfully and substantially violated conditions three and five of the order of probation. There was substantial competent evidence to establish that Dingess (1) left Citrus County on May 15, 2007 in violation of condition three and (2) committed the offense of trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of condition five. It was up to the trial court to weigh the credibility of the testimony. Also, under the facts, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Dingess’ motion for continuance to subpoena a witness.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, C.J. and SAWAYA, J., concur.

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

GRIFFIN, J.

Roger L. Dingess [“Dingess”] appeals the trial court’s judgment and sentence that followed a violation of probation [“VOP”] hearing. On appeal, Dingess argues that the State failed to carry its burden of establishing that he willfully and substantially violated conditions three and five of the order of probation.

We conclude the trial court did not err by determining that Dingess willfully and substantially violated conditions three and five of the order of probation. There was substantial competent evidence to establish that Dingess (1) left Citrus County on May 15, 2007 in violation of condition three and (2) committed the offense of trafficking in methamphetamine in violation of condition five. It was up to the trial court to weigh the credibility of the testimony. Also, under the facts, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of Dingess’ motion for continuance to subpoena a witness.

AFFIRMED.

PALMER, C.J. and SAWAYA, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 So. 3d 444, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 2849, 2009 WL 873536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dingess-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack