Eddie v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eddie v. State

740 So. 2d 583, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10063, 1999 WL 533784

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 27, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2840

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 740 So. 2d 583 (Eddie 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

Eddie v. State, 740 So. 2d 583, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10063, 1999 WL 533784 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Eddie (Eddie), on March 12, 1995, was convicted of two counts of committing a lewd, lascivious, or indecent act and sentenced to concurrent split sentences of 5/6 years in prison followed by five years on probation with the express condition that he have no unsupervised contact with minor children. Eddie was released from incarceration in January 1998. Eddie, upon his release, was permitted to reside with his aunt and uncle and their two minor children, with the condition that Eddie have no unsupervised contact with the minor children. A probation officer, on April 28, 1998, filed an affidavit alleging that Eddie violated his probation by having unsupervised contact with the two minor children and by failing to move from his residence within three days after being instructed to do so by his probation officer. The trial court, following the violation of probation hearing, found that Eddie had violated his probation by having unsupervised contact with the two minor boys with whom he resided and by failing to change his residence as instructed by his probation officer. Sufficient evidence in the record supports the first of the two grounds for revocation, that Eddie had unsupervised contact with the two minors, and for this reason we affirm the order of revocation. The second ground for revocation, however, must be vacated because violation of a condition imposed by a probation officer, rather than [584]*584by the trial court, will not support revocation of probation. Kiess v. State, 642 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that “[violation of a condition which is imposed by a probation officer, rather than an express condition of the trial court, cannot serve as a basis for revocation of probation”).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of revocation, but only on the ground that Eddie had unsupervised contact with the two minor boys.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

ALLEN, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Eddie (Eddie), on March 12, 1995, was convicted of two counts of committing a lewd, lascivious, or indecent act and sentenced to concurrent split sentences of 5/6 years in prison followed by five years on probation with the express condition that he have no unsupervised contact with minor children. Eddie was released from incarceration in January 1998. Eddie, upon his release, was permitted to reside with his aunt and uncle and their two minor children, with the condition that Eddie have no unsupervised contact with the minor children. A probation officer, on April 28, 1998, filed an affidavit alleging that Eddie violated his probation by having unsupervised contact with the two minor children and by failing to move from his residence within three days after being instructed to do so by his probation officer. The trial court, following the violation of probation hearing, found that Eddie had violated his probation by having unsupervised contact with the two minor boys with whom he resided and by failing to change his residence as instructed by his probation officer. Sufficient evidence in the record supports the first of the two grounds for revocation, that Eddie had unsupervised contact with the two minors, and for this reason we affirm the order of revocation. The second ground for revocation, however, must be vacated because violation of a condition imposed by a probation officer, rather than [584]*584by the trial court, will not support revocation of probation. Kiess v. State, 642 So.2d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding that “[violation of a condition which is imposed by a probation officer, rather than an express condition of the trial court, cannot serve as a basis for revocation of probation”).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of revocation, but only on the ground that Eddie had unsupervised contact with the two minor boys.

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

ALLEN, LAWRENCE and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

740 So. 2d 583, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10063, 1999 WL 533784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eddie-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack