Hutchins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hutchins v. State

887 So. 2d 436, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17890, 2004 WL 2723615

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 24, 2004

DocketNo. 2D04-883

StatusPublished

This text of 887 So. 2d 436 (Hutchins 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

Hutchins v. State, 887 So. 2d 436, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17890, 2004 WL 2723615 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.

Randall Paul Hutchins appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to seven years in prison. There was competent, substantial evidence that Mr. Hutchins violated condition 3 of his order of probation twice, violated condition 7 twice, and violated condition 42 once. However, the evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that Mr. Hutchins had willfully violated condition 38, which directed, “You will at your own expense, participate and successfully complete a sex offender program with therapists specifically trained to treat sex offenders.” See Mitchell v. State, 871 So.2d 1040, 1041-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Butler v. State, 775 So.2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Salzano v. State, 664 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Because the record clearly reflects that the trial court would have revoked Mr. Hutchins’ probation and imposed the seven-year sentence based upon the three supported violations, we affirm the order revoking Mr. Hutchins’ probation but remand for the trial court to strike from the order any reference to Mr. Hutchins’ violating condition 38.

Affirmed in part and remanded.

FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.

Randall Paul Hutchins appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to seven years in prison. There was competent, substantial evidence that Mr. Hutchins violated condition 3 of his order of probation twice, violated condition 7 twice, and violated condition 42 once. However, the evidence did not support the trial court’s finding that Mr. Hutchins had willfully violated condition 38, which directed, “You will at your own expense, participate and successfully complete a sex offender program with therapists specifically trained to treat sex offenders.” See Mitchell v. State, 871 So.2d 1040, 1041-42 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Butler v. State, 775 So.2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Salzano v. State, 664 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).

Because the record clearly reflects that the trial court would have revoked Mr. Hutchins’ probation and imposed the seven-year sentence based upon the three supported violations, we affirm the order revoking Mr. Hutchins’ probation but remand for the trial court to strike from the order any reference to Mr. Hutchins’ violating condition 38.

Affirmed in part and remanded.

FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

887 So. 2d 436, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 17890, 2004 WL 2723615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchins-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack