State v. Spratling
| Decision Date | 28 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 47421,47421 |
| Parties | STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. James Lee SPRATLING, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
David J. Busch, Asst. Public Defender, for respondent.
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Spratling v. State, reported at 310 So.2d 306 (Fla.App. 1, 1975), which purportedly conflicts with Smith v. State, 292 So.2d 69 (Fla.App. 3, 1974).
On November 4, 1971, a four count information was filed against respondent charging him with breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony, kidnapping, and two counts of assault and battery. He plead guilty to two counts of assault and battery, adjudication of guilt was withheld, and he was placed on probation for five years.
On January 4, 1974, respondent was arrested and charged with murder in the first degree. The police reports stated that the victim had been shot with a small caliber shotgun. The trial judge on January 10, 1974, issued a Rule to Show Cause directed to respondent charging that he violated condition '(e)' of his probation, which provides:
'In all respects live honorably, work diligently at a lawful occupation, and support dependents, if any, to the best of defendant's ability, and live within what income is available.'
The Show Cause Order charged that respondent violated condition (e)
Respondent was ordered to appear before the trial judge on January 24, 1974, to show cause why his probation should not be revoked. However, no hearing of probation was held at this time. Apparently defense counsel requested that the trial judge defer action on his Rule to Show Cause until after the murder case had been disposed of.
Respondent was tried for second degree murder on February 21, 1974, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.
At the conclusion of the jury trial immediately after the verdict of not guilty was returned, the trial judge announced:
The following colloquy then transpired:
'On the fourth count I will adjudicate you to be guilty of that. Do you have any cause to show why sentence should not be imposed?
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hines v. State
...did not disclose to him certain "privileged" documents which were later used against him at the revocation hearing.7 See, State v. Spratling, 336 So.2d 361 (Fla.1976). ...
-
Donaldson v. State, 81-108
...attacked in the subsequent revocation hearing. A conviction is a sufficient basis for revocation of probation. State v. Spratling, 336 So.2d 361 (Fla.1976); Dearing v. State, 388 So.2d 296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Franklin v. State, 356 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Demchak v. State, 351 So.2d ......
-
Taylor v. State
...procedure deprived him of proper notice and the requisite hearing prior to the revocation of his probation. He relies on State v. Spratling, 336 So.2d 361 (Fla.1976), for the proposition that, in the absence of a stipulation or consent, the criminal trial should not be construed as a probat......
-
Isom v. State, s. 79-145
...no error occurred. Egantoff v. State, 208 So.2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); Fuller v. State, 294 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); State v. Spratling, 336 So.2d 361 (Fla.1976); Hobbs v. State, 378 So.2d 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). However, we find the trial court erred in basing one of its grounds for ......