Sharpston v. State, 895 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). · Go Syfert
Search
Sharpston v. State, 895 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …not once was sharpston asked whether he actually committed the crime. Topic ↗
15 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: GABRIEL JIMENEZ CONTRERAS v. STATE OF FLORIDA (fladistctapp, 2019-06-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) GABRIEL JIMENEZ CONTRERAS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
not once was sharpston asked whether he actually committed the crime.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Contreras v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
not once was sharpston asked whether he actually committed the crime.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Contreras v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
not once was sharpston asked whether he actually committed the crime.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cerny v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Under the circumstances of this case, double jeopardy does not bar a second revocation proceeding on remand based on the filing of a new affidavit alleging the same violations, see Boyd v. State, 1 So.3d 1186, 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229 , 1230 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Scott v. State, 937 So.2d 746, 748-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), provided that Mr. Cerny's probationary terms have not expired, see Hernandez v. State, 33 So.3d 143, 145 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Humbert v. State, 933 So.2d 726, 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Sharpston v. State, 895 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hernandez v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
This court has recognized that “ e[t]he Florida Statutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, a permanent revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest during the probationary period.’ ” Sharpston v. State, 895 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
As this court recently stated in Sharpston v. State, 895 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183, 185 (Fla. 1978)), "`the Florida Statutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, a permanent revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest during the probationary period.'" In Sharpston , the defendant admitted being arrested, but he never admitted that he actually committed the crime.
discussed Cited "see" Humbert v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sharpston v. State, 895 So.2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing revocation in which the violation was based solely on defendant's arrest); Chavous v. State, 597 So.2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (reversing revocation in which the violation was demonstrated solely by hearsay).
Robert SHARPSTON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
2D04-1939.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Mar 2, 2005.
895 So. 2d 1225
Northcutt.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 81%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (2)

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Susan Martin, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tiffany Gatesh Fearing, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

A revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest is improper. For this reason, we reverse the revocation of Robert Sharpston's probation.

[*1226] As the supreme court has explained, "[t]he Florida Statutes do not authorize, nor would our constitution permit, a permanent revocation of probation based solely upon proof of an arrest during the probationary period." Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978). At the revocation hearing, defense counsel stated that Sharpston wanted to admit being arrested; the judge informed Sharpston that he allegedly violated probation by being arrested for petit theft; and Sharpston agreed. Not once was Sharpston asked whether he actually committed the crime. Therefore, we are compelled to reverse. See, e.g., Stevenson v. State, 843 So.2d 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Ontiveros v. State, 746 So.2d 1174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Manies v. State, 621 So.2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). We note that on remand, the State is not precluded from attempting to prove a violation based on the same circumstances as long as the period of supervision has not expired. See Wilson v. State, 842 So.2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Our disposition renders Sharpston's other issue on appeal moot.

Reversed and remanded.

CASANUEVA and KELLY, JJ., concur.