07-3576 RICHARD ARNEZZ HAYWOOD v. STATE OF FLORIDA

State: Florida

Court: Florida First District Court

Docket No: 07-3576

Case Date: 08/21/2008

Preview:IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA RICHARD ARNEZZ HAYWOOD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ___________________________/ Opinion filed August 21, 2008. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Phyllis M. Rosier, Judge. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and G. Kay Witt, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Natalie D. Kirk, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D07-3576

PER CURIAM. Richard Haywood appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years' imprisonment. Because the state failed to adduce sufficient evidence that appellant willfully and substantially violated his probation on

June 22, 2006, as alleged in the charging document, we reverse the order of revocation and vacate the sentence. On June 27, 2006, the state filed an affidavit of violation alleging that appellant violated conditions one and three of his probation.1 The affidavit alleged that appellant, who had been residing in Macon, Georgia, violated condition one of his probation by failing to report to the Gainesville probation office by 4:30 p.m. on June 22, 2006, as his probation officer had directed him to do. The affidavit alleged that appellant also violated condition three of his probation by failing to report in Florida (instead of Georgia) by 4:30 p.m. on June 22, 2006, as his probation officer had directed him to do, Georgia having allegedly rejected a request that it supervise appellant. Because the state failed to present sufficient evidence that appellant willfully failed to report to the Gainesville probation office on June 22, 2006, and presented no evidence that appellant violated condition three of his probation order by changing his residence without first procuring his probation officer's consent, the trial court abused

Condition one provides: "You will submit a full and truthful report to your officer on the form provided for that purpose each month as directed by your officer." Condition three provides: "You will not change your residence or employment, or leave the County of your residence without first procuring the consent of your officer." 2

1

its discretion in revoking appellant's probation. See Smith v. State, 965 So. 2d 1252, 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The evidence did show that, in June of 2006, appellant's probation officer told appellant, who had been residing in Macon, that he had to return to Florida because the State of Georgia had rejected a request that appellant be supervised in that state. See

Download 07-3576 RICHARD ARNEZZ HAYWOOD v. STATE OF FLORIDA.pdf