Barber v. State, 76--547
| Decision Date | 05 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--547,76--547 |
| Citation | 344 So.2d 913 |
| Parties | Albert BARBER, Appellant, v. The STATA of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Sidney M. Pertnoy, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
On April 15, 1974, this appellant pled guilty to the possession of a controlled substance and was placed on probation for a period of five years. One of the conditions of his probation was as follows:
'(b) You shall promptly and truthfully answer all inquiries directed to you by the Court and the Probation Supervisor; allow the Probation Supervisor to visit your home, employment site, or elsewhere, and carry out all instructions he gives you.'
The conditions of probation did not include a requirement that the defendant file written monthly reports. During the period of probation, the defendant's Probation Supervisor filed an application of violation of probation setting forth as one of the grounds that the defendant had failed to file written reports as he was instructed to do by the probation officer. The trial court revoked defendant's probation upon the sole ground that he had failed to file the monthly reports.
The State points out that it is often necessary for the Probation Supervisor to have written reports from a probationer in orer to carry out his duties as supervisor. We think that this right to require reports affirmatively appears from the provisions of Section 948.02, Florida Statutes (1975). Nevertheless, it also appears that it is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the court to set the terms and conditions upon which a probationer's probation may be revoked. See Section 948.03, Florida Statutes (1975); and Kominsky v. State, 330 So.2d 800 (Fla.1st DCA 1976).
We, therefore, hold that although the Department of Offender Rehabilitation, acting through a probation officer, may require a probationer to file periodic reports, even though such a requirement is not made a condition of his probation, such probation may not be revoked solely upon the ground that the probationer has failed to file the reports, unless the requirement is made a condition of his probation by the court. In other words, only the court may set the conditions upon which probation may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. State, 82-262
...396 So.2d 1107, 1110 (Fla.1981), and "probation may be revoked only for [a] violation of a condition set by the court." Barber v. State, 344 So.2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). If no grounds for revocation exist, the court lacks jurisdiction to impose a second sentence. Upon termination of the pr......
-
State v. Bleasdale
...thereof. Chatman v. State, 365 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Page v. State, 363 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); and Barber v. State, 344 So.2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)." (Emphasis added.) Id. Similarly, in this cause, appellant apparently suffers from some mental problems. The court initially......
-
Chatman v. State, 77-1656
...as was this one, by his probation officer, rather than by the court, which has the sole lawful authority to do so. Barber v. State, 344 So.2d 913 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Page v. State, The order of revocation and the judgment and sentence are therefore reversed and the cause remanded with dire......
-
Draper v. State, 79-335
...with Chatman v. State, 365 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), Page v. State, 363 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and Barber v. State, 344 So.2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). ...