Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). · Go Syfert
Search
Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2002–2024 · 2 courts · …when a court finds that a probationer has violated his probation, it must enter a formal order setting forth the conditions that it finds were violated. at p. 945 ✓
37 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Curtis v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County) (flmd, 2024-01-25)
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990 2008 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Curtis v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
M.D. Fla. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
when a court finds that a probationer has violated his probation, it must enter a formal order setting forth the conditions that it finds were violated.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Gordon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
when a court finds that a probationer has violated his probation, it must enter a formal order setting forth the conditions that it finds were violated.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PATRICIA DAGAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
See Hendrix v. State, 224 So. 3d 823, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that a snapout cannot serve as a written competency order); Gray v. State, 198 So. 3d 780 , 782–83 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that a snapout cannot serve as a written judgment or sentence); Phillips v. State, 198 So. 3d 789, 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016), Zaborowski v. State, 126 So. 3d 405 , 407 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013), Thar v. State, 8 So. 3d 1204 , 1205 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), and Cochrane v. State, 997 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (Altenbernd, J., concurring) (each noting this court's longstanding discouragement of th…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ADAN ESPINOZA-BRITO v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Nevertheless, the trial court erred by failing to enter a written revocation order and is directed to do so on remand."); Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943, 944-45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) ("The record contains forms entitled 'Memo of Sentence of the Court' and uniform sentencing orders . . . .
cited Cited as authority (rule) McCarron v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
See Cato v. State, 845 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943, 944-45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). 7 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jacobs v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
See Montonez v. State, 724 So.2d 650, 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crawley v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
As this court recognized in Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943, 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), “At a probation revocation hearing, the court must advise the probationer of the charges, and then if admitted, the court may revoke the probation.” The record shows that Crawley was provided with an appropriate revocation hearing.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Greer v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
See Dolinger v. State, 779 So.2d 419, 420-21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McCloud v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
See generally Batten v. State, 589 So.2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Brewer v. State, 583 So.2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dantler v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · confidence medium
Gardner v. State, 569 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Earle v. State, 519 So.2d 757, 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Haynes v. State, 571 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Morris v. *199 State, 563 So.2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Major v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Saenz v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Day v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
discussed Cited "see" Monroe v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Covert v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Doyle v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943, 944-45 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Gates v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Grantham v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" McHome v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Jones v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
cited Cited "see" Nelson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1990); Smothers v. State, 582 So.2d 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Hood v. State, 642 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
cited Cited "see" Govan v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Donley v. State, 557 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gerald DONLEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
88-00908.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Mar 9, 1990.
557 So. 2d 943
Schoonover.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published

[*944] James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert Trogolo, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Katherine V. Blanco, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

SCHOONOVER, Judge.

The appellant, Gerald Donley, challenges the judgments and sentences entered in seven circuit court cases on the grounds that he was not given a proper probation revocation hearing. He also contends that the trial court erred by not entering proper orders revoking his probation. We agree that the court did not enter proper orders revoking the appellant's probation, but affirm in all other respects.

The appellant, while on probation in connection with seven different cases, was charged with violating four of the conditions of his probation. At the appellant's probation revocation hearing, the state elected to proceed on the basis that the appellant had violated condition three of his probation by leaving the county of his residence without consent, by changing his residence without consent, and by failing to notify his probation officer of his whereabouts. The state also contended that the appellant had not filed his monthly reports. The appellant's attorney announced that the appellant was admitting those charges and that the state had agreed to a maximum sentence of four years. He then proceeded to question the appellant concerning mitigation of the sentence. During this questioning, the appellant admitted violating the terms and conditions of his probation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that the appellant violated his probation, and he was subsequently sentenced to four years in prison. This timely appeal followed.

We find no merit in the appellant's contention that he was not given a proper probation revocation hearing. At a probation revocation hearing, the court must advise the probationer of the charges, and then if admitted, the court may revoke the probation. § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (1987). A probation revocation hearing does not have to meet the strict requirements of a criminal trial. It is sufficient if the appellant is advised of the charges, evidence is presented, and the probationer has an opportunity to present his position. See Washington v. State, 284 So.2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); McNeely v. State, 186 So.2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). In this case, the appellant was represented by counsel, who admitted the charges, and represented to the court that the state had offered a maximum sentence of four years if the appellant admitted that he violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The appellant was allowed to state his position, and in seeking mitigation he also admitted violating condition three of his probation. Washington; McNeely. See also Leonard v. State, 391 So.2d 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

We agree, however, with the appellant's contention that the court erred by not entering proper orders finding that the appellant had violated probation. The[*945] record contains forms entitled "Memo of Sentence of the Court" and uniform sentencing orders in connection with each of the seven cases. Neither the forms nor the sentencing orders are sufficient. When a court finds that a probationer has violated his probation, it must enter a formal order setting forth the conditions that it finds were violated. Cornett v. State, 506 So.2d 88 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). See also Smith v. State, 492 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We, accordingly, remand with directions to enter proper probation violation orders. The appellant need not be present for this purpose. We affirm in all other respects.

Affirmed, but remanded with instructions.

RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.