Hart v. State, 78-144

Decision Date22 November 1978
Docket NumberNo. 78-144,78-144
Citation364 So.2d 544
PartiesJoseph Robert HART, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

W. J. Heffernan, Jr., of Lubet, Heffernan & Rabinowitz, Altamonte Springs, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Benedict P. Kuehne and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MOORE, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for a felony which was predicated upon a violation of probation. We affirm.

Appellant was convicted of two separate felonies for which he received consecutive sentences. The first sentence was for a period of five years incarceration, the last three and one-half years of which were to be suspended with the appellant being placed on probation. The second sentence was to five years probation, said sentence to run consecutive to the first sentence. Appellant served the one and one-half years confinement and commenced his probation under the first sentence. During this time appellant entered a guilty plea to a new felony occurring during his probation and this violation of the law was used as support for an affidavit charging a violation of the probation upon which appellant was placed, but which he had not commenced serving. Appellant's motion to dismiss the charges alleging a violation of probation was denied, whereupon he entered a plea of no contest to the violation, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court revoked the second probation and sentenced appellant to another period of incarceration. This appeal followed.

Appellant contends that as a matter of law the court could not revoke a sentence of probation which appellant had not commenced serving. This precise question was decided by this court in Martin v. State, 243 So.2d 189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) wherein we said:

"The question here is whether a defendant probationer can, with impunity, engage in a criminal course of conduct (or for that matter any course of conduct which is essentially contrary to good behavior) during the interval between the date of an order of probation and some subsequent date when the probationary term is to commence. We think not. To hold otherwise would make a mockery of the very philosophy underlying the concept of probation, namely, that given a second chance to live within the rules of society and the law of the land, one will prove that he will thereafter do so and become a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • U.S. v. Cartwright
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 24, 1983
    ...v. Sullivan, Mont., 642 P.2d 1008 (1982); Commonwealth v. Wendowski, 278 Pa.Super.Ct. 453, 420 A.2d 628 (1980); Hart v. State, 364 So.2d 544 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 4th 1978); State v. Morris, 98 Idaho 328, 563 P.2d 52 (1977); Brown v. Commonwealth, 564 S.W.2d 21 (Ky.1977); Parrish v. Ault, 237 G......
  • State v. Sullivan, 81-347
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1982
    ...States ex rel. Sole v. Rundle (3d Cir. 1971), 435 F.2d 721; Com. v. Wendowski (1980), 278 Pa.Super.Ct. 453, 420 A.2d 628; Hart v. Florida (Fla.App.1978), 364 So.2d 544; State v. Morris (1977), 98 Idaho 328, 563 P.2d 52; Brown v. Com. (Ky.1977), 564 S.W.2d 21; Parrish v. Ault (1976), 237 Ga.......
  • Stafford v. State
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • August 30, 1984
    ...4th DCA 1981); Kimble v. State, 396 So.2d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Bracey v. State, 381 So.2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Hart v. State, 364 So.2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), and has been adopted by the Third District. Williamson v. State, 388 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA Stafford, 437 So.2d at 233-34......
  • Santiago v. Ryan
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 11, 2013
    ...(Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Stafford v. State, 455 So.2d 385 (Fla.1984); Russell v. State, 487 So.2d 366 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) and Hart v. State, 364 So.2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), we reject that claim and hold that the provision does apply when the defendant commits a new crime—here, by way of making......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT