Davidson v. State, No. 81-2299
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | CLARKE, THOMAS L., Jr.; GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL |
| Citation | 419 So.2d 728 |
| Parties | Bruce Allen DAVIDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2299 |
Page 728
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Second District.
Jerry Hill, Public Defender, and Bryan E. Hopkins, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corces, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
CLARKE, THOMAS L., Jr., Associate Judge.
After pleading guilty to uttering a forged instrument, Bruce A. Davidson was placed on probation for three years. As a condition of probation the court ordered him to successfully complete the Teen Challenge Program. After being enrolled in the program for several months, Davidson was suspended for thirty days for leaving the premises where the program was located. After his suspension ended he returned, and the program supervisor asked him whether he wanted to be there or not. Davidson advised that he did not want to be there, whereupon on October 2, 1981, the program supervisor, with the approval of Davidson's probation officer, told him to go home. A travel permit was issued by the probation officer permitting Davidson to go to Georgia to live with his parents. He thereafter obtained employment and maintained contact with his probation officer as required. Upon making a required call to his probation officer on October 16, 1981, Davidson was advised that the sentencing judge had directed that a violation of probation charge be filed due to Davidson's failure to successfully complete the Teen Challenge Program. A warrant charging the violation was executed on October 26, 1981, and a hearing followed on November 2, 1981. At the hearing it was clearly established that Davidson had not completed the program; however, Davidson himself offered the only direct testimony concerning his termination. The trial judge found Davidson
Page 729
guilty of violating the condition of his probation regarding the Teen Challenge Program, revoked his probation, and sentenced him (pursuant to the Youthful Offender Act) to four years in prison followed by one year on probation.Davidson contends that since his termination was with the consent and approval of the program supervisor and his probation officer, it did not constitute a violation of probation. He notes that he continued to comply with the other conditions of his probation (reporting, restitution, etc.). The record reflects that it was on October 16, 1981, when Davidson first realized that his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Savage v. State, No. 2D12–2269.
...Carter, 835 So.2d 259, 261 (Fla.2002)); see also McCumber v. State, 682 So.2d 1214, 1215–16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing Davidson v. State, 419 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)); Hanania v. State, 855 So.2d 92, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (using term “preponderance” of the evidence) (citing Stevens v. ......
-
Saunders v. United States, No. 84-1531.
...improper attitude is not a "willful" violation sufficient to trigger revocation of probation. See, e.g., Davidson v. State, 419 So.2d 728, 729 (Fla.App. 1982); cf. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 668, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 2070, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983) (sentencing court could not proper......
-
Molina v. State, No. 86-2841
...of probation must be willful, and that the greater weight of the evidence must show that the violation is substantial. Davidson v. State, 419 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA This court has refused to find technical violations sufficient to justify ......
-
Hilton v. State, No. 84-2126
...reports on time was a substantial violation of his probation. See Hudson v. State, 425 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Davidson v. State, 419 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Shaw v. State, 391 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Donneil v. State, 377 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The defendant's pr......
-
Savage v. State, No. 2D12–2269.
...Carter, 835 So.2d 259, 261 (Fla.2002)); see also McCumber v. State, 682 So.2d 1214, 1215–16 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing Davidson v. State, 419 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)); Hanania v. State, 855 So.2d 92, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (using term “preponderance” of the evidence) (citing Stevens v. ......
-
Saunders v. United States, No. 84-1531.
...improper attitude is not a "willful" violation sufficient to trigger revocation of probation. See, e.g., Davidson v. State, 419 So.2d 728, 729 (Fla.App. 1982); cf. Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 668, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 2070, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983) (sentencing court could not proper......
-
Molina v. State, No. 86-2841
...of probation must be willful, and that the greater weight of the evidence must show that the violation is substantial. Davidson v. State, 419 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA This court has refused to find technical violations sufficient to justify ......
-
Hilton v. State, No. 84-2126
...reports on time was a substantial violation of his probation. See Hudson v. State, 425 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Davidson v. State, 419 So.2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Shaw v. State, 391 So.2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Donneil v. State, 377 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The defendant's pr......