Watson v. State, 497 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Watson v. State, 497 So. 2d 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Morris Publishing Group, LLC v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Here, the purported “bench conference” was, in fact, a substantive part of the trial. 13 In the context of a defendant’s right to be present for trial, Florida courts have consistently held that the “challenge of jurors is one of the essential stages of a criminal trial where the defendant’s presence is required.” Salcedo v. State, 497 So.2d 1294, 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (citing Lane v. State, 459 So.2d 1145, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)); see also Luyao v. State, 982 So.2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (noting that the “ ‘examination and challenge of potential jurors is one of th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brower v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
See Francis v. State, 413 So.2d 1175, 1177-79 (Fla. 1982); Mejia v. State, 675 So.2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Salcedo v. State, 497 So.2d 1294, 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So.2d 1043 (Fla.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mejia v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
See State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1993) ("for an error to be so fundamental that it can be raised for the first time on appeal, the error must be basic to the judicial decision under review and equivalent to a denial of due process"); Salcedo v. State, 497 So.2d 1294, 1295 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (allegation that defendant was absent from courtroom during exercise of peremptory challenges "alleged fundamental error which no objection was necessary to preserve"), review denied, 506 So.2d 1043 (Fla.1987).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hughes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Watson v. State, 497 So.2d 1294, 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gordon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
In so ruling, we reject the state's contention that Gordon is entitled only to receive credit for the time that she was on probation and not in violation of any of her conditions of probation because, as we noted in Kolovrat v. State, 574 So.2d 294, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), "probation is not normally suspended or tolled retroactively unless the probationer absconds from supervision." [3] Also, in Watson v. State, 497 So.2d 1294, 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), the court held that probation can only be terminated "by a valid order of revocation or the running of its term, and not by the mere executio…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mark WATSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
BH-353.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nov 14, 1986.
497 So. 2d 1294
Wigginton.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

T. Whitney Strickland, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and John M. Koenig, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

We affirm the order revoking appellant's probation. Probation is terminated only by a valid order of revocation or the running of its term, and not by the mere execution of an arrest warrant for violation of probation. See section 948.06, Fla. Stat.; cf. McNeill v. State, 287 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (the issuance of a warrant assures continued jurisdiction of the trial court to revoke probation, despite the fact that the period of probation has run in the interim).

AFFIRMED.

ERVIN and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.