MacK v. State

342 So. 2d 562
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 16, 1977
Docket76-916 to 76-918
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 342 So. 2d 562 (MacK 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
MacK v. State, 342 So. 2d 562 (Fla. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

342 So.2d 562 (1977)

Frederick Kelly MACK, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 76-916 to 76-918.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 16, 1977.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, and Stephen O. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Tampa, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The above appeals are from orders revoking previous orders of probation in three criminal cases and entering adjudications of guilt and consecutive sentences to the State Prison. We reverse.

The affidavit of the probation supervisor alleged that the Appellant had violated Condition (E) of the Orders of Probation, i.e., failure to "live honorably," by trespassing on the property of Graybar Electric. At the revocation hearing the evidence presented was totally insufficient to establish the charged trespass, although ample evidence was presented that indicated the Appellant may have been guilty of other offenses. Indeed, the court orally recognized this and obviously revoked probation on the basis of the other offenses. We have held, nevertheless, that probation cannot be revoked for one reason when the affidavit of violation states another. Hooks v. State, 207 So.2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Crum v. State, 286 So.2d 268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973).

Accordingly, the orders of revocation of probation entered herein are reversed and the judgments and sentences predicated thereon are vacated and set aside; and the causes are remanded for such additional proceedings as may be advised.

HOBSON, A.C.J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Llerena v. State
139 So. 3d 454 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)
Nadal v. State
855 So. 2d 257 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Nelson v. State
802 So. 2d 470 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)
Pimentel v. State
560 So. 2d 1387 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Harris v. State
495 So. 2d 243 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Brown v. State
468 So. 2d 439 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Freiheit v. State
458 So. 2d 1172 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Iacono v. State
452 So. 2d 1124 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Clark v. State
442 So. 2d 1076 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Hodges v. State
370 So. 2d 78 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
King v. State
349 So. 2d 738 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
342 So. 2d 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-v-state-fladistctapp-1977.