Wienke v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wienke v. State

412 So. 2d 936, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19796

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 16, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1747

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 412 So. 2d 936 (Wienke 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

Wienke v. State, 412 So. 2d 936, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19796 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant complains that the court improperly revoked his probation.

Appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit alleging that he had violated his probation by trespassing in violation of the law and by failing to spend a year in a community correctional facility as required by the probation order. At the hearing the state simply showed that appellant had pled guilty to a charge of trespassing for which he had been sentenced to three days time served and that apparently as a result of the conviction he would not be reaccepted into the community correctional work release center. Appellant testified that the trespass came about as a result of a misunderstanding and that it was not really his fault.

We cannot accept appellant’s argument that the proof concerning his conduct was insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the conscience of the court that the violations occurred. Appellant’s testimony about the circumstances of the trespass was certainly relevant because his conviction did not obligate the court to revoke his probation. Nevertheless, the state’s proof that he had committed a crime provided a basis upon which the court could revoke probation. E.g., Egantoff v. State, 208 So.2d 843 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 164 (Fla.1968). Hence, this court cannot second-guess the court’s decision to do so.

AFFIRMED.

SCHEB, C.J., and GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant complains that the court improperly revoked his probation.

Appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit alleging that he had violated his probation by trespassing in violation of the law and by failing to spend a year in a community correctional facility as required by the probation order. At the hearing the state simply showed that appellant had pled guilty to a charge of trespassing for which he had been sentenced to three days time served and that apparently as a result of the conviction he would not be reaccepted into the community correctional work release center. Appellant testified that the trespass came about as a result of a misunderstanding and that it was not really his fault.

We cannot accept appellant’s argument that the proof concerning his conduct was insufficient as a matter of law to satisfy the conscience of the court that the violations occurred. Appellant’s testimony about the circumstances of the trespass was certainly relevant because his conviction did not obligate the court to revoke his probation. Nevertheless, the state’s proof that he had committed a crime provided a basis upon which the court could revoke probation. E.g., Egantoff v. State, 208 So.2d 843 (Fla.2d DCA), cert. denied, 218 So.2d 164 (Fla.1968). Hence, this court cannot second-guess the court’s decision to do so.

AFFIRMED.

SCHEB, C.J., and GRIMES and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

412 So. 2d 936, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 19796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wienke-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack