Heckman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Heckman v. State

70 So. 3d 743, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15170, 2011 WL 4405941

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 23, 2011

Docket5D10-2162

StatusPublished

This text of 70 So. 3d 743 (Heckman 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

Heckman v. State, 70 So. 3d 743, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15170, 2011 WL 4405941 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Robert Irvin Heckman appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation. We reverse.

*744 A violation of probation that triggers revocation must be willful and substantial, and must be supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Robinson v. State, 907 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We conclude, in light of the circumstances, that the alleged violation was not substantial. Heckman promptly informed his probation officer of his actions with no objection. Although the probation officer’s view of Heckman’s actions is not determinative, it does support Heckman’s contention that his violation was not willful or substantial. See Benedict v. State, 774 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

We, therefore, reverse the order revoking Heckman’s probation, and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Robert Irvin Heckman appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation. We reverse.

*744 A violation of probation that triggers revocation must be willful and substantial, and must be supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Robinson v. State, 907 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). We conclude, in light of the circumstances, that the alleged violation was not substantial. Heckman promptly informed his probation officer of his actions with no objection. Although the probation officer’s view of Heckman’s actions is not determinative, it does support Heckman’s contention that his violation was not willful or substantial. See Benedict v. State, 774 So.2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

We, therefore, reverse the order revoking Heckman’s probation, and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., GRIFFIN and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 So. 3d 743, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 15170, 2011 WL 4405941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/heckman-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack