EP v. State, 4D04-952.
| Citation | 901 So.2d 193 |
| Decision Date | 23 March 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D04-952.,4D04-952. |
| Parties | E.P., A Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Elisabeth Porter, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
A juvenile appeals his adjudication of delinquency and commitment to a low-risk residential program for violation of probation. He argues the court erred in asking him questions during the hearing, and in relying solely upon hearsay to find him in violation. We find no error and affirm.
The State filed a petition for violation of probation, alleging the juvenile failed to attend the Florida Ocean Sciences Institute (FOSI), a special condition of his probation. Specifically, it alleged the juvenile failed to attend scheduled enrollment meetings at the school, and once enrolled failed to return for scheduled classes.
Over a hearsay objection, the probation officer testified the juvenile was advised of the responsibilities, rules and regulations of his probation, but failed to attend any sessions at FOSI after the day he enrolled.
The juvenile's mother testified she was present when her son was advised of the requirements and conditions of probation. She corroborated that her son failed to respond to the first two enrollment appointments, but excused his absence because she did not have transportation on one occasion, and left him home while she visited her mother in the hospital on the second occasion. She was unaware if her son attended FOSI after those appointments. Both she and her son signed FOSI's attendance policy.
The last State witness was the juvenile. He acknowledged the terms of his probation and his failure to attend the first two scheduled enrollment appointments at FOSI. He also testified, over defense counsel's objection, he never went back after he enrolled. The court remarked:
All right, let the record reflect that he's shaking his head yes and no. So as to the question of did he go back to FOSI he said no. As to the question of whether or not he knew he had to go back to FOSI he shook his head yes.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court advised the juvenile:
[t]he basis of the allegation of the violation of probation was that you failed to attend FOSI. By your own admission you indicated that you failed to attend FOSI. So I'm going to find you guilty of the violation of probation based upon the testimony presented by your mother indicating that she had gone to the school that day and you weren't there; your probation officer indicating that he had talked to the school and you didn't go; and your testimony indicating that you didn't go also....
The court then revoked the juvenile's probation and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice.
"To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation." Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see also W.B.S. v. State, 851 So.2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
; Jones v. State, 730 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). We review a court's determination to revoke probation for an abuse of discretion. See Brown v. State, 455 So.2d 635, 636 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
The issue raised is whether the trial court properly accepted the juvenile's admission to the violation of probation over his counsel's objection based upon the juvenile's fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. The State responds that a probationer, who accepts the terms of his probation agreement, waives his fifth amendment privilege regarding the terms of the probation.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakin v. Lakin, 4D04-826.
... ... permanent alimony to wife following a five-year marriage, where wife could only earn minimum wage and would be left "in a pathetic financial state"); see also Adinolfe v. Adinolfe, 718 So.2d 369, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (noting that "six years was not such a short period as to necessarily deny ... ...
-
Sylvis v. State, 5D05-295.
...1999). Nevertheless, a parolee's admission is direct evidence from which a court can properly find him in violation. E.P. v. State, 901 So.2d 193, 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Having reviewed the record on appeal and the applicable law, we conclude that the circuit court did not depart from the......
-
EJ v. State
...were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, we affirm the findings by the trial court as to those violations. See E.P. v. State, 901 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that the State need only establish a violation by a preponderance of the evidence); Wilson v. State, 781 So.2d......
-
J.A.B. v. State
...the prosecution would have to prove that the "`probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.'" E.P. v. State, 901 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)). Therefore, at the time when the State seeks enfo......