Patrick v. State, CC--396
| Decision Date | 17 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. CC--396,CC--396 |
| Citation | 336 So.2d 1253 |
| Parties | Verle Vernelle PATRICK, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee (State). |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard W. Ervin, III, Public Defender and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Patrick appeals from a judgment and sentence based on an order finding him in violation of his probation and modifying the period of probation.
Patrick contends that the trial court did not have authority, without notice and hearing to him, to find him in violation of his probation and did not have authority to modify the period. The State contends that the court had authority to extend the period and that the extension was actually a modification of the terms and conditions. We agree with Patrick and reverse.
Following a plea of guilty to the crime of carrying a concealed firearm, the court withheld adjudication of guilt, and on 8 June 1973 placed Patrick on probation for two years. On 3 June 1975, without notice or hearing, the court determined that Patrick had violated the conditions of his probation and extended the period of his probation for one year on authority of Section 948.03, Florida Statutes (1975).
On 24 May 1976, an affidavit was filed charging Patrick with violation of his probation. Patrick's lawyer moved to dismiss the affidavit on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his probation because it did not have authority to enter the order of 3 June 1975 finding Patrick in violation of his probation and extending the period by one year. The court denied the motion, revoked the porbation, adjudged Patrick guilty and sentenced him to prison.
Section 948.03, Florida Statutes (1975), does not authorize the extension of the period of probation. It merely sets forth eight specific terms and conditions of probation which the court may include in its order of probation, and authorizes the court to modify the terms and conditions at any time within the probation period.
Although Section 948.04, Florida Statutes (1973), authorized the court to extend the period of probation, this provision was deleted by the 1974 legislature.
Section 948.06, Florida Statutes (1975), is the only authority for extension of the period of probation. This statute provides that a period of probation may be continued but only after notice and hearing to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. State
...948.06. Carter v. State, 516 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gurganus v. State, 391 So.2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Patrick v. State, 336 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The trial court erred in this case by enhancing the terms of Clark's community control without notice and hearing. Section ......
-
Clark v. State
...means by which a probationary term may be extended. See also, Gurganus v. State, 391 So.2d 806 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Patrick v. State, 336 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Here, however, the defendant's community control was not extended, but merely modified to include a condition that he ent......
-
State v. Schafer
...modification of terms and conditions within the probationary period, but does not authorize extension of the period. Patrick v. State, 336 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). 5. That the Defendant cannot confer jurisdiction on the trial court by waiver, acquiescence, estoppel or consent. White ......
-
Smith v. State, 79-399
...may be continued but only after notice and hearing and a finding that there has been a violation of probation. Patrick v. State, 336 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Appellant was afforded notice and a hearing; however, the court specifically found that there was no violation. Absent such a ......