Hileman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hileman v. State

2 So. 3d 1065, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 755, 2009 WL 249208

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 2009

Docket3D08-476

StatusPublished

This text of 2 So. 3d 1065 (Hileman 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

Hileman v. State, 2 So. 3d 1065, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 755, 2009 WL 249208 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals a revocation of probation, following his admission to certain violations of probation. We affirm the order, but remand for the court to correct the revocation on the basis of an unproven ground.

At the revocation hearing, the defendant admitted the violations of conditions relating to reporting and restitution, but did not admit the violation of condition 5, commission of a new violation of law. The State informed the court that it had no evidence of any new violation of law. The court nonetheless (inadvertently, no doubt) included this violation in the order revoking probation.

The violation on the basis that defendant committed a new violation of law must be corrected on remand, because a violation of probation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Michael v. State, 992 So.2d 367, 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Francois v. State, 923 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The defendant admitted the other two grounds; we, therefore, affirm the revocation but remand to the trial court to correct the sentence to omit any reference to the new violation of *1066 law. See Bitzer v. State, 958 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The defendant need not be present for this correction.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for correction of sentence.

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

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals a revocation of probation, following his admission to certain violations of probation. We affirm the order, but remand for the court to correct the revocation on the basis of an unproven ground.

At the revocation hearing, the defendant admitted the violations of conditions relating to reporting and restitution, but did not admit the violation of condition 5, commission of a new violation of law. The State informed the court that it had no evidence of any new violation of law. The court nonetheless (inadvertently, no doubt) included this violation in the order revoking probation.

The violation on the basis that defendant committed a new violation of law must be corrected on remand, because a violation of probation must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Michael v. State, 992 So.2d 367, 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Francois v. State, 923 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). The defendant admitted the other two grounds; we, therefore, affirm the revocation but remand to the trial court to correct the sentence to omit any reference to the new violation of *1066 law. See Bitzer v. State, 958 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). The defendant need not be present for this correction.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for correction of sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 So. 3d 1065, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 755, 2009 WL 249208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hileman-v-state-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack