Potts v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Potts v. State

133 So. 3d 602, 2014 WL 854103, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3414

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 28, 2014

DocketNo. 5D13-308

StatusPublished

This text of 133 So. 3d 602 (Potts 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

Potts v. State, 133 So. 3d 602, 2014 WL 854103, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3414 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLIS, J.

Appellant appeals the lower court’s revocation of his probation and suspended sentence. At sentencing, the lower court suspended Appellant’s eighteen-month prison sentence on the condition that he complete two years’ probation. Later, the lower • court improperly amended Appellant’s probation by adding the requirement that he successfully complete a drug treatment program and subsequently revoked his suspended sentence for failure to complete the program. The probation condition requiring drug treatment was not imposed in the original sentence. The State concedes error because Appellant’s due process rights were violated. He did not receive a properly noticed hearing regarding the added condition of probation. § 948.06, Fla. Stat. (2012); Clark v. State, 579 So.2d 109 (Fla.1991).

We reverse the revocation of probation and remand with instructions to reinstate Appellant to the term of probation and conditions originally ordered.

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

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

WALLIS, J.

Appellant appeals the lower court’s revocation of his probation and suspended sentence. At sentencing, the lower court suspended Appellant’s eighteen-month prison sentence on the condition that he complete two years’ probation. Later, the lower • court improperly amended Appellant’s probation by adding the requirement that he successfully complete a drug treatment program and subsequently revoked his suspended sentence for failure to complete the program. The probation condition requiring drug treatment was not imposed in the original sentence. The State concedes error because Appellant’s due process rights were violated. He did not receive a properly noticed hearing regarding the added condition of probation. § 948.06, Fla. Stat. (2012); Clark v. State, 579 So.2d 109 (Fla.1991).

We reverse the revocation of probation and remand with instructions to reinstate Appellant to the term of probation and conditions originally ordered.

REVERSED and REMANDED with INSTRUCTIONS.

PALMER and COHEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 So. 3d 602, 2014 WL 854103, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potts-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack