Franklin v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Franklin v. State

345 So. 2d 1082, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15498

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 22, 1977

DocketNo. 76-1045

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 345 So. 2d 1082 (Franklin 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

Franklin v. State, 345 So. 2d 1082, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15498 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

ANSTEAD, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. We reverse.

The defendant, John C. Franklin, was found by the trial court to have violated two conditions of his probation:

(f) Neither carry nor own any weapons without first securing the consent of the Probation Supervisor.

(h) Live and remain at liberty without violating any law.

Condition (f) was alleged to have been violated when Franklin and another individual disarmed an assailant armed with a gun at a bar where Franklin was doing carpentry work. He was shown to have had the gun in his hand momentarily after the weapon was taken from the assailant. Subsequently, the police, acting on a report that Franklin was seen with the gun, went to Franklin’s home, where Franklin denied he had the gun and refused the police permission to search his home. The police then secured a search warrant and upon searching Franklin’s home found another gun in a [1083]*1083closet, not the one involved with the assailant; and this other gun turned out to have been stolen. Franklin was then arrested for possession of stolen property resulting in the charge as to condition (h).

Franklin denied any knowledge that the gun was stolen and testified that a relative placed- the gun in his home for safekeeping. He also called a neighbor as a witness to establish the existence of his relative. Franklin’s denial of knowledge about the gun being stolen and his explanation of the presence of the gun were not contradicted, and his testimony about disarming the assailant was actually confirmed by the State’s witnesses. Under these circumstances we find the proof presented at the hearing was not sufficient to sustain the revocation of probation. Larocco v. State, 276 So.2d 538 (Fla.4th DCA 1973).

Accordingly, the order of revocation of probation and the judgment and sentence are reversed with directions that the order of probation of November 3, 1971 be reinstated.

DOWNEY, J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

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

ANSTEAD, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. We reverse.

The defendant, John C. Franklin, was found by the trial court to have violated two conditions of his probation:

(f) Neither carry nor own any weapons without first securing the consent of the Probation Supervisor.

(h) Live and remain at liberty without violating any law.

Condition (f) was alleged to have been violated when Franklin and another individual disarmed an assailant armed with a gun at a bar where Franklin was doing carpentry work. He was shown to have had the gun in his hand momentarily after the weapon was taken from the assailant. Subsequently, the police, acting on a report that Franklin was seen with the gun, went to Franklin’s home, where Franklin denied he had the gun and refused the police permission to search his home. The police then secured a search warrant and upon searching Franklin’s home found another gun in a [1083]*1083closet, not the one involved with the assailant; and this other gun turned out to have been stolen. Franklin was then arrested for possession of stolen property resulting in the charge as to condition (h).

Franklin denied any knowledge that the gun was stolen and testified that a relative placed- the gun in his home for safekeeping. He also called a neighbor as a witness to establish the existence of his relative. Franklin’s denial of knowledge about the gun being stolen and his explanation of the presence of the gun were not contradicted, and his testimony about disarming the assailant was actually confirmed by the State’s witnesses. Under these circumstances we find the proof presented at the hearing was not sufficient to sustain the revocation of probation. Larocco v. State, 276 So.2d 538 (Fla.4th DCA 1973).

Accordingly, the order of revocation of probation and the judgment and sentence are reversed with directions that the order of probation of November 3, 1971 be reinstated.

DOWNEY, J., concurs. DAUKSCH, J., concurs specially, with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

345 So. 2d 1082, 1977 Fla. App. LEXIS 15498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack