Lawson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lawson v. State

792 So. 2d 603, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11464, 2001 WL 913920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 2001

DocketNo. 4D01-1118

StatusPublished

This text of 792 So. 2d 603 (Lawson 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

Lawson v. State, 792 So. 2d 603, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11464, 2001 WL 913920 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We do not find Appellant’s lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to continue or postpone his violation of probation hearing until after his trial on the charges which served as the basis for the State’s allegation that he violated his probation. The trial court could have revoked his probation irrespective of his acquittal on criminal charges. See Gonzales v. State, 780 So.2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(“The fact that appellant was acquitted of aggravated battery by a jury does not mean that his probation could not be revoked on the same facts.”); Monis v. State, 727 So.2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a probation violation based on the same conduct because in a criminal case guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt whereas in a probation violation case guilt need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence).

Accordingly, we affirm the order denying his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief without prejudice to file a timely petition seeking a belated appeal of the order finding he violated his probation pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

DELL, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We do not find Appellant’s lawyer provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to continue or postpone his violation of probation hearing until after his trial on the charges which served as the basis for the State’s allegation that he violated his probation. The trial court could have revoked his probation irrespective of his acquittal on criminal charges. See Gonzales v. State, 780 So.2d 266, 267 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)(“The fact that appellant was acquitted of aggravated battery by a jury does not mean that his probation could not be revoked on the same facts.”); Monis v. State, 727 So.2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a probation violation based on the same conduct because in a criminal case guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt whereas in a probation violation case guilt need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence).

Accordingly, we affirm the order denying his rule 3.850 motion for postconviction relief without prejudice to file a timely petition seeking a belated appeal of the order finding he violated his probation pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(c).

DELL, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

792 So. 2d 603, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 11464, 2001 WL 913920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawson-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack