Miranda v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miranda v. State

909 So. 2d 997, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14275, 2005 WL 2175458

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 9, 2005

DocketNo. 5D04-4074

StatusPublished

This text of 909 So. 2d 997 (Miranda 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

Miranda v. State, 909 So. 2d 997, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14275, 2005 WL 2175458 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, J.

Fransisco E. Miranda appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation. He contends that the affidavit alleging the vio[998]*998lation of probation was fundamentally defective because it was not sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths, nor was it verified as set forth in section 92.525(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). In Smartmays v. State, 901 So.2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), this Court decided this same issue adversely to Miranda’s position. Smartmays, while recognizing that the affidavit alleging a violation of probation failed to be properly sworn to, concluded that such non-compliance, while error, was not the type of defect that is considered fundamental, particularly in a revocation of probation context. Consequently, because the issue was not raised in the trial court, it was waived.

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, C.J., and GRIFFIN J., concur.

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

ORFINGER, J.

Fransisco E. Miranda appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation. He contends that the affidavit alleging the vio[998]*998lation of probation was fundamentally defective because it was not sworn to before a person authorized to administer oaths, nor was it verified as set forth in section 92.525(l)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). In Smartmays v. State, 901 So.2d 278 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), this Court decided this same issue adversely to Miranda’s position. Smartmays, while recognizing that the affidavit alleging a violation of probation failed to be properly sworn to, concluded that such non-compliance, while error, was not the type of defect that is considered fundamental, particularly in a revocation of probation context. Consequently, because the issue was not raised in the trial court, it was waived.

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, C.J., and GRIFFIN J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 So. 2d 997, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 14275, 2005 WL 2175458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miranda-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack