Pendergrass v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pendergrass v. State

601 So. 2d 1250, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6773, 1992 WL 143629

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 24, 1992

DocketNo. 91-03512

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 601 So. 2d 1250 (Pendergrass 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

Pendergrass v. State, 601 So. 2d 1250, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6773, 1992 WL 143629 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

We reverse the revocations of defendant’s probations. The revocations stemmed from defendant having been charged with possession of a stolen driver’s license and carrying a concealed weapon, alleged violations of probation condition 5 requiring no violations of law. The record indicates that the trial court dismissed these charges after granting defendant’s motion to suppress. See Graddy v. State, 517 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (revocation improper if based on commission of new charges that are subsequently dismissed). See also Cross v. State, 469 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), approved, 487 So.2d 1056 (Fla.), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 805, 107 S.Ct. 248, 93 L.Ed.2d 172 (1986) (exclusionary rule applies in revocation proceeding).

We affirm the imposition of conditions 6 and 9 which defendant contends are unrelated to the offenses of which he was convicted. Defendant did not challenge these conditions at the time he was origi[1251]*1251nally placed on probation. See Baxter v. State, 596 So.2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, No. 79,148 (Fla. Apr. 28, 1992).

Reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded.

RYDER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

We reverse the revocations of defendant’s probations. The revocations stemmed from defendant having been charged with possession of a stolen driver’s license and carrying a concealed weapon, alleged violations of probation condition 5 requiring no violations of law. The record indicates that the trial court dismissed these charges after granting defendant’s motion to suppress. See Graddy v. State, 517 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (revocation improper if based on commission of new charges that are subsequently dismissed). See also Cross v. State, 469 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), approved, 487 So.2d 1056 (Fla.), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 805, 107 S.Ct. 248, 93 L.Ed.2d 172 (1986) (exclusionary rule applies in revocation proceeding).

We affirm the imposition of conditions 6 and 9 which defendant contends are unrelated to the offenses of which he was convicted. Defendant did not challenge these conditions at the time he was origi[1251]*1251nally placed on probation. See Baxter v. State, 596 So.2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), review denied, No. 79,148 (Fla. Apr. 28, 1992).

Reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded.

RYDER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

601 So. 2d 1250, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 6773, 1992 WL 143629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pendergrass-v-state-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack