Flickinger v. State
636 So. 2d 601, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4988, 1994 WL 201272
Opinion
It appearing that appellant’s probation was improperly revoked because the state failed to establish at the probation revocation hearing that the defendant committed, as charged, a new offense subsequent to being placed on probation (there being no evidence adduced as to when the new offense was committed) see and compare Stafford v. State, 465 So.2d 385 (Fla.1984), the order revoking same is reversed and the matter is returned to the trial court with directions to reestablish the probation.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Flickinger v. State, 636 So. 2d 601, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 4988, 1994 WL 201272 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).
636 So. 2d 601 (Flickinger v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Popwell v. Greene
465 So. 2d 384 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1985)