Pease v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pease v. State

163 So. 3d 743, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6470, 2015 WL 1958989

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-2390

StatusPublished

This text of 163 So. 3d 743 (Pease 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

Pease v. State, 163 So. 3d 743, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6470, 2015 WL 1958989 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Pease appeals an order revoking his probation, which was based on the trial court’s oral pronouncement that he violated probation in part by having contact with the victim or the victim’s family during the period of supervision. Violation of this condition of probation was not charged in the State’s affidavit. It is fundamental error and a deprivation of Appellant’s due process rights to base a revocation of probation on an uncharged violation of a condition of that probation. Smith v. State, 738 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Because it is not clear whether the trial court would have revoked Appellant’s probation based solely on the charged and proven violation relating to contact with a minor, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. Richardson v. State, 694 So.2d 147, 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Pease appeals an order revoking his probation, which was based on the trial court’s oral pronouncement that he violated probation in part by having contact with the victim or the victim’s family during the period of supervision. Violation of this condition of probation was not charged in the State’s affidavit. It is fundamental error and a deprivation of Appellant’s due process rights to base a revocation of probation on an uncharged violation of a condition of that probation. Smith v. State, 738 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Because it is not clear whether the trial court would have revoked Appellant’s probation based solely on the charged and proven violation relating to contact with a minor, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings. Richardson v. State, 694 So.2d 147, 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

WOLF, BENTON, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 So. 3d 743, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 6470, 2015 WL 1958989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pease-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack