Franklin v. State
| Citation | 226 So.2d 461 |
| Decision Date | 17 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 69--78,69--78 |
| Parties | Glenn D. FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Edwin I. Ford, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William D. Roth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.
Appellant, defendant below, was charged with and plead guilty to the offense of breaking and entering a building other than a dwelling house with intent to commit a misdemeanor. However, his adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence were stayed by the Hillsborough County Circuit Court, and he was placed on probation under certain listed conditions for a period of three years as of June 29, 1967. Subsequently, after appropriate proceedings, an amended order was entered on January 12, 1968, extending the order of probation previously entered from three to five years due to appellant's failure to divulge to the court material facts and information and charges pending at the time of entry of the original order of probation.
Appellant's probation supervisor, L. John Makin, filed an affidavit of violation of probation on December 9, 1968, alleging a violation of condition (a) of appellant's probation, which states in part that appellant will not change his employment without first procuring consent of the court, which consent shall be obtained through appellant's probation supervisor. Also alleged was a violation of condition (b), which states in part that appellant shall make a report to his probation supervisor on the form provided for that purpose no later than the 5th day of each month until his release. Appellant pleaded not guilty to these allegations, although the record of the hearing of revocation of probation shows that the plea was later changed to guilty. An amended affidavit of violation of probation was filed by appellant's probation supervisor on January 24, 1969, alleging in addition to the points raised by the original affidavit that appellant violated condition (c) of his probation, which states in part that appellant will not use intoxicants of any kind. It further alleged that appellant, a minor, on or about June 13, 1968, in the company of one Tod Mahone, also a minor, purchased alcoholic beverages using a fraudulent identificiation card. Appellant pleaded not guilty to violation of condition (c), and a hearing was held on the matter. The circuit judge thereafter revoked appellant's probation, adjudicated him guilty of the offense of breaking and entering a building other than a dwelling house with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, and sentenced him to hard labor from six months to four years. It is from this revocation of probation that this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singletary v. State
...evidence before the trial judge justified revocation. The revocation was not based solely upon hearsay evidence as in Franklin v. State, 226 So.2d 461 (2 DCA Fla.1969); Hampton v. State, 276 So.2d 497 (3 DCA Fla.1973), and Mato v. State, 278 So.2d 672 (3 DCA If, at final hearing, the court ......
-
Jones v. State
...he had been told by a third person]; Hampton v. State, 276 So.2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) [Nature of hearsay unknown]; Franklin v. State, 226 So.2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) [Hearsay that appellant, a minor, purchased alcoholic beverages with a fraudulent I.D. card].3 Cf. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 41......
-
Jess v. State
...violations, the revocation may be supported on that basis alone. Page v. State, 363 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Franklin v. State, 226 So.2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). We do not know, however, whether the trial judge would have revoked the probation or imposed the same sentence on just that......
-
Aaron v. State, 79-1581
...where it is supported by a legally sufficient basis in the record. Coxon v. State, 365 So.2d 1067 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Franklin v. State, 226 So.2d 461 (Fla.2d DCA 1969). In this case, the grounds upon which the defendant's revocation of probation could properly have been based may be regarde......