green
Positive treatment
7.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1948 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1948
1987
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Peters v. State
This Court, quoting from Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607, 608-09 (1947), said: The major concern of the court at the [revocation] hearing was whether or not appellant had been on good behavior during his suspended sentence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ponce v. State
The conscience of the court is satisfied that Ponce violated his probation; Ponce fails to show an abuse of discretion in the judge’s revocation of probation, Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 687 , 32 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla.1947), and we affirm the revocation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Commonwealth
Lombardino v. Heyd, 318 F.Supp. 648, 650-51 (E.D.La.1970), aff'd, 438 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 880 , 92 S.Ct. 195 , 30 L.Ed.2d 160 (1971); People v. Coleman, 13 Cal.3d 867 , 120 Cal.Rptr. 384, 393 , 533 P.2d 1024, 1033 (1975); People v. Atencio, 186 Colo. 76 , 525 P.2d 461, 463 (1974); Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607, 610 (1947); People v. Dowery, 20 Ill.App.3d 738 , 312 N.E.2d 682, 687 (1974), aff'd, 62 Ill.2d 200 , 340 N.E.2d 529 (1975); Dulin v. State, 169 Ind.App. 211 , 346 N.E.2d 746, 751 (1976); State v. Caron, 334 A.2d 495, 499-500 (Me.1975); Lemire v. Bo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gruen v. State
Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607, 609 (1947); Carone v. State, 361 So.2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 710 (Fla.1978); Randolph v. State, 292 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 300 So.2d 901 (Fla.1974).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Gerald Duane Vandemark
Lombardino v. Heyd, 318 F.Supp. 648, 650-52 (E.D.La.1970), Aff'd, 438 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir.) (per curiam), Cert. denied, 404 U.S. 880 , 92 S.Ct. 195 , 30 L.Ed.2d 160 (1971); People v. Calais, 37 Cal.App.3d 898, 904 , 112 Cal.Rptr. 685, 689 (3d Dist.1974) (alternate holding); People v. Hayko, 7 Cal.App.3d 604, 609-11 , 86 Cal.Rptr. 726, 730 (1st Dist.1970); People v. Atencio, Colo., 525 P.2d 461, 462-63 (1974); Bernhardt v. State, 288 So.2d 490, 500 (Fla.1974) (alternate holding); Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 684-86 , 32 So.2d 607, 608-10 (1947); People v. Dowery, 20 Ill.App.3d 738, 741-44 , 312…
discussed
Cited "see"
Lawson v. State
See Brill, 32 So.2d at 609 . [6] In addition to the procedural due process that is required at the time of an alleged violation, the trial court and the probation order must also adequately place the probationer on notice of conduct that is both required and prohibited during the probationary period.
discussed
Cited "see"
James v. State
See Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607 (1947); Brown v. State, 429 So.2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (revocation justified if evidence is sufficient to satisfy conscience of court that condition of probation has been violated).
cited
Cited "see"
Cooper v. State
See Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607 (1947); Randolph v. State, 292 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); and McNeely v. State, 186 So.2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).
cited
Cited "see"
Young v. State
See Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607 (1947); Blackburn v. State, Fla. App. 1972, 261 So.2d 861 .
cited
Cited "see"
Scott v. State
See Brill v. State (Fla.), 32 So. 2d 607 ; and Solis v. State (Ct. Cr.
cited
Cited "see"
Caston v. State
See Sellers v. Bridges, 153 Fla. 586 , 15 So.2d 293 , 148 A.L.R. 1240 , and Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fernard George Ramcald, Jr. v. State of Florida
There must be a hearing, “and the evidence upon which to predicate a revocation introduced at the hearing must be sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition of probation has been violated.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Brill v. State, 32 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1947) (explaining that the purpose of having evidence presented at a hearing “is to satisfy the conscience of the court as to whether the conditions of the suspended sentence have been violated”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alfred James Scott v. State of Florida
Aviles, 165 So. 3d at 842 ; see also Brill v. State, 32 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 1947) (revocation of a suspended sentence subject to whether trial court abused its discretion).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Benitez v. State
See, e. g., Brill v. State (1947), 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607 ; Hooks v. State (Fla.App.2d 1968), 207 So.2d 459 ; McNeely v. State (Fla.App.2d 1966), 186 So.2d 520 ; and Phillips v. State (Fla.App.2d 1964), 165 So.2d 246 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mario Gonzalez
v.
State of Florida
v.
State of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida.
Nov 18, 1947.
A. A. Fernandez, for appellant.
J. Tom Watson, Attorney General, Reeves Bowen, Assistant Attorney General, and Rebecca Bowles Marks, Special Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Thomas, Buford, Adams, Barns.
Published
PER CURIAM:
Appellant was indicted for the crime of murder in the first degree and on trial was convicted of murder in the second degree.
There is nothing disclosed by the record warranting the -writing of an opinion.
No reversible error being made to appeal the judgment is affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., BUFORD, ADAMS and BARNS, JJ., concur.