Dennis v. State, 630 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Dennis v. State, 630 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Garcia-Medina v. State, 135 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 605 Vacating probation revocation for violating statutory modification requirements1 citing casevacating a revocation of probation that was based on an earlier modification order when the modification order was entered in violation of section 948.061 citing court put it this way
  • Garcia-Medina v. State, 135 So. 3d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).published
    (vacating a revocation of probation that was based on an earlier modification order when the modification order was entered in violation of section 948.06)
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Karl Anthony DENNIS
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 92-2415.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Dec 10, 1993.
Published opinion
630 So. 2d 605
1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 12174
1993 WL 504453
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, P. Douglas Brinkmeyer, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Bradley R. Bisehoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Lawrence, Mickle, Smith.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

REVERSED. Karl Anthony Dennis (Dennis) was sentenced to adult probation in November 1990. This order was later modified in March, 1992, to place Dennis in a probation and restitution center, but was entered without providing him with a hearing. A probation order cannot be modified without a hearing, even when jurisdiction is specifically reserved for the purpose of adding a special condition. Russo v. State, 603 So.2d 1353 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (citing Clark v. State, 579 So.2d 109 (Fla.1991)). The revocation order under review relies in part on the March 1992 modification order to find violations of probation; the order therefore must be vacated.

Dennis moreover was sentenced without the protections required by Troutman v. State, 630 So.2d 528 (Fla.1993). We therefore remand for proceedings consistent herein.

SMITH, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.