12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hallgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Hall, 641 So.2d 403 (Fla.1994) (holding that the trial court could not consider new charges in the amended affidavit of probation violation where the original affidavit was timely filed, but the amended affidavit was not filed until after the probationary period had expired). 2004Seitz bases his third argument (lack of jurisdiction) principally on State v. Hall, 641 So.2d 403 (Fla.1994), wherein the supreme court was answering the certified question: “Whether the trial court could consider new charges in an amended affidavit of probation violation where the original affidavit was timely filed, but the amended affidavit was not filed until after the probationary period had expired because the defendant committed the alleged violation at, or near, the end of his probation period?” The supreme court answered the question in the negative, reaffirming the longstanding rule | 1 | 2 |
State v. Garciagreen1 sentence2014Id. (finding there was no error when the trial court permitted the State to amend the affidavit to reflect the correct date that appellant was placed on probation); see also State v. Garcia, 692 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding no prejudice where the State sought to amend the information to reflect the correct date of the charge). | 1 | 1 |
Stambaugh v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See Paulk v. State, supra ; Shropshire v. State, supra ; Stambaugh v. State, 891 So.2d 1136, 1139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(mere filing of an affidavit of probation is insufficient to ensure trial court's jurisdiction over defendant to revoke his probation). | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Green v. State, 463 So.2d 1139 (Fla.1985); Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.1975); State v. Jones, 425 So.2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Bones v. State, 764 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Jolly v. State, 756 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (on reh’g). | 1 | 1 |
Singletary v. Stategreen1 sentence1996In making that determination we note that “[t]he judge is not required to follow strict rules of evidence and may consider letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in a trial.” Singletary v. State, 290 So.2d 116, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 293 So.2d 361 (Fla.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Francois v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Francois v. State, 676 So.2d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA), review granted, No. 88,540, 683 So.2d 483 (Fla.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Patrick v. Stategreen1 sentence1979See Patrick v. State, 336 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rosser v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. (finding there was no error when the trial court permitted the State to amend the affidavit to reflect the correct date that appellant was placed on probation); see also State v. Garcia, 692 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (finding no prejudice where the State sought to amend the information to reflect the correct date of the charge). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Salzano v. State
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Jones
green
1 sentence2001See Green v. State, 463 So.2d 1139 (Fla.1985); Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.1975); State v. Jones, 425 So.2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Bones v. State, 764 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Jolly v. State, 756 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (on reh’g). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Jolly v. State
neutral
1 sentence2001See Green v. State, 463 So.2d 1139 (Fla.1985); Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.1975); State v. Jones, 425 So.2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Bones v. State, 764 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Jolly v. State, 756 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (on reh’g). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Russ v. State
green
1 sentence2001See Green v. State, 463 So.2d 1139 (Fla.1985); Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.1975); State v. Jones, 425 So.2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Bones v. State, 764 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Jolly v. State, 756 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (on reh’g). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bones v. State
green
1 sentence2001See Green v. State, 463 So.2d 1139 (Fla.1985); Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.1975); State v. Jones, 425 So.2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Bones v. State, 764 So.2d 888 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Jolly v. State, 756 So.2d 142 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (on reh’g). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Singletary v. State
neutral
1 sentence1996In making that determination we note that “[t]he judge is not required to follow strict rules of evidence and may consider letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in a trial.” Singletary v. State, 290 So.2d 116, 121 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 293 So.2d 361 (Fla.1974). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hodges v. State
green
1 sentence1984Hodges v. State, 370 So.2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Green v. State
neutral
1 sentence1984At the probation revocation hearing the court “found that the evidence failed to eliminate his doubt and was insufficient to justify revocation of Green’s probation.” 450 So.2d at 509 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Frederick v. State
neutral
1 sentence1977The appellant’s main point on appeal is that the affidavit asserting the violation of condition (4) charged him with nothing more than having been accused and arrested which cannot sustain the revocation of probation. 1 Appellant relies primarily upon Frederick v. State, 339 So.2d 251 (Fla.4th DCA 1976), in which the affidavit of probation violation contained the following charge: “ ‘Violation of Condition (h) which states, “Live and remain at liberty without violating any laws”, in that on 7-9-75, the aforesaid did admit to Mr. Charles L. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.