Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealhearingtrialprobationdue process

hearingtrialmotionfelonyprobationdue process

Related Cases

Hubbard v. State, 683 N.E.2d 618

Facts

In 1980, Leroy Hubbard was convicted of battery and sentenced to eight years, enhanced by thirty years for habitual offender status. In 1994, he was placed on probation for five years after a modification of his sentence. In September 1995, police responded to a report of Hubbard's involvement in a fight and found him intoxicated and uncooperative. The State filed a petition to revoke his probation, alleging multiple violations of the terms of his probation.

In 1980, Hubbard was convicted by a jury of battery, as a Class C felony, and of being a habitual offender. He was sentenced to eight years on the battery conviction, enhanced by an additional thirty years for habitual offender status. In June, 1994, Hubbard's Motion for Modification of Sentence was granted, and the trial court suspended the remaining ten years of the habitual offender sentence and placed Hubbard on probation for five years.

Issue

1. Did the trial court violate due process requirements by failing to set forth in writing the facts and reasons for revoking probation? 2. Did the trial court violate due process by basing the revocation on an alleged violation of which Hubbard received no notice? 3. Was the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's revocation of Hubbard's probation?

Rule

The court may revoke an individual's probation if the person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period. Due process requires a written statement regarding the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking probation.

The court may revoke an individual's probation if: (1) The person has violated a condition of probation during the probationary period…. Due process requires a written statement by the fact finder regarding the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking probation.

Analysis

The court found that the trial court's order of revocation adequately stated the reasons for revocation, and the transcript of the evidentiary hearing provided sufficient evidence to support those reasons. Although one reason for revocation was based on a violation for which Hubbard received no notice, the court determined that other violations were sufficiently proven, allowing for the revocation to stand.

The trial court's Order of Revocation provides the reasons for, and the hearing transcript provides the evidence underlying, the trial court's revocation of Hubbard's probation. Both documents provide an adequate basis for appellate review and, thus, are adequate to satisfy the separate writing requirement.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to revoke Hubbard's probation, concluding that the evidence supported the revocation based on multiple violations.

We affirm.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case because the court found sufficient evidence to support the revocation of Hubbard's probation based on violations of probation conditions.

The State filed a petition to revoke Hubbard's probation. In its Petition, the State alleged that Hubbard had violated 'term 6, 8 and 13 of his terms of probation.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Darby v. State, 383 So.3d 691

Herring v. United States, 169 A.3d 354

Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456, 35 Fla. L. Weekly S731, 36 Fla. L. Weekly S18

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416

Bottoson v. Moore, 833 So.2d 693, 27 Fla. L. Weekly S891