Mata v. State
| Decision Date | 24 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D08-4544.,4D08-4544. |
| Citation | 31 So.3d 257 |
| Parties | Steven MATA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
31 So.3d 257
Steven MATA, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 4D08-4544.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
March 24, 2010.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Heidi L. Bettendorf, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
STEVENSON, J.
In this case, the State filed an Affidavit of Violation of Probation, charging that Steven Mata violated his probation as follows: committing the criminal offense of leaving the scene of an accident without giving information (count I); failure to report a crash (count II); reckless driving (count III); failing to have a valid driver's license (count IV); driving with a suspended license (count V); failure to provide proof of insurance (count VI); and failure to remove an obstructing vehicle (count VII). At the conclusion of the VOP hearing, the trial court dismissed count V, as the State failed to present any evidence that the defendant's license was suspended, found the defendant guilty of the remaining violations, and revoked Mata's probation. In this appeal, Mata challenges the sufficiency of the evidence (point I), claims that the trial court abused its discretion by relying upon uncharged misconduct, i.e., the theft of a cell phone, in revoking probation (point II), and asserts the trial court erred by failing to enter a written order of revocation (point III). We affirm the revocation of Mata's probation, writing only to address the arguments raised in points I and III.
At the VOP hearing, Janet Raether testified that she was driving westbound on I-595 when she was struck by another vehicle. After the collision, Raether observed a black SUV on the exit ramp and a green Honda, which had apparently gone through the fence and come to rest on
Paula Strong was driving on State Road 84 that evening and heard squealing tires. She pulled over and saw that a green car had come through the fence from I-595 and was resting on State Road 84 about 100 feet behind her. The green car had body damage. A man that Strong identified as the defendant knocked on her car window and asked to use her cell phone. Strong gave the man her phone. He took the phone and fled.
FBI Agent Dustin Blount, called to investigate the accident, arrived about twenty to thirty minutes after the crash. Brodsky reported to him that the Honda had caused the accident, that the driver of the Honda exited the car and fled west on State Road 84 on foot, and that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trueblood v. Inch
...revocation context. See Barnes v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 481 Fed.Appx. 459, 461 (11th Cir. 2012) (unpublished) (citing Mata v. State, 31 So.3d 257, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“To sustain a violation of probation, the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant willf......
-
Harrington v. State
...been demonstrated by the greater weight of the evidence." State v. Carter , 835 So.2d 259, 262 (Fla. 2002) ; see also Mata v. State , 31 So.3d 257, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the probationer willfully and substantially violated the terms......
-
Person v. State
...to report timely to his probation officer, were both lawfully imposed and correctly found to have been violated. See Mata v. State, 31 So.3d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); Blake v. State, 21 So.3d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Thompson v. State, 994 So.2d 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). While we affirm the rev......
-
Randolph v. State
...that the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence based solely upon the remaining [allegations.]" Mata, 31 So.3d at 260. issue as presented by Defendant invites the question of what happens to the remaining unadmitted allegations of VOP when no attempt was made......