From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 10, 1979
375 So. 2d 867 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

Opinion

Nos. 78-2228, 78-2229 and 78-2305.

October 10, 1979.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Hillsborough County, Harry Lee Coe, III, J.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, and Karal B. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, and Daniel L. Perry, Legal Intern, Tampa, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael A. Palecki, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


Appellant attacks the orders revoking his probation in three cases. The revocations were based on a substantial ground for which there is adequate support in the record. However, the orders also specify appellant's failure to live and remain at liberty without violating any law as an additional ground for revocation. This was improper because there was no evidence presented from which the court could find that appellant had violated any law. Coxon v. State, 365 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

Accordingly, we strike the latter ground from the three orders of revocation. In all other respects, the orders of revocation, together with the judgments and sentences, are affirmed.

GRIMES, C.J., OTT, J., and STRICKLAND, J. TIM, Associate Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Williams v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Oct 10, 1979
375 So. 2d 867 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)
Case details for

Williams v. State

Case Details

Full title:EDDIE L. WILLIAMS A/K/A FREDDIE WILLIAMS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Oct 10, 1979

Citations

375 So. 2d 867 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1979)

Citing Cases

Scott v. State

However, we strike the additional violations described in the revocation order because they were not…

Duncan v. State

We affirm the order revoking probation, but strike that portion which finds Mr. Duncan attempted to hit the…