Maness v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Maness v. State

138 So. 3d 600, 2014 WL 1877622, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6957

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 9, 2014

DocketNo. 2D13-503

StatusPublished

This text of 138 So. 3d 600 (Maness 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

Maness v. State, 138 So. 3d 600, 2014 WL 1877622, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6957 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Harold Maness appeals his judgment and sentence entered following a violation of probation. We affirm the judgment and sentence without discussion. We remand, however, with instructions that the court remove certain language from the order of revocation of drug offender probation. In paragraph 2 the order reads: “At hearing, the defendant admitted to all the allegations of violations of probation.” In paragraph 3, the order states “the Court accepts the admissions to the violations, finds the violations to be willful and substantial, and revokes and terminates the defendant’s probation.” A review of the hearing transcript reveals that Mr. Maness did not admit to violating probation. To the contrary, when asked whether he admitted or denied violating probation he explicitly answered “I deny it.” Mr. Maness presented a defense at'the hearing and testified on his own behalf. He claimed that his actions — which eventually triggered revocation — were justified because he did not believe that he could fulfill the original terms of his probation. He did not, however, wilfully admit to violating probation.

On remand, the court shall remove from the order of revocation of drug offender probation paragraph 2, and amend paragraph 3, to reflect that Mr. Maness did not admit violating probation.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Harold Maness appeals his judgment and sentence entered following a violation of probation. We affirm the judgment and sentence without discussion. We remand, however, with instructions that the court remove certain language from the order of revocation of drug offender probation. In paragraph 2 the order reads: “At hearing, the defendant admitted to all the allegations of violations of probation.” In paragraph 3, the order states “the Court accepts the admissions to the violations, finds the violations to be willful and substantial, and revokes and terminates the defendant’s probation.” A review of the hearing transcript reveals that Mr. Maness did not admit to violating probation. To the contrary, when asked whether he admitted or denied violating probation he explicitly answered “I deny it.” Mr. Maness presented a defense at'the hearing and testified on his own behalf. He claimed that his actions — which eventually triggered revocation — were justified because he did not believe that he could fulfill the original terms of his probation. He did not, however, wilfully admit to violating probation.

On remand, the court shall remove from the order of revocation of drug offender probation paragraph 2, and amend paragraph 3, to reflect that Mr. Maness did not admit violating probation.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

ALTENBERND, SILBERMAN, and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 So. 3d 600, 2014 WL 1877622, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maness-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.