Lindsay v. State, 54 So. 3d 638

Lindsay appeals a judgment convicting him of two third-degree felonies (forgery of a written instrument and uttering a forged instrument) entered after a probation-revocation hearing.
He had been under probation with adjudication of guilt originally withheld.
At the probation hearing, the court found a probation violation but held it was not willful and substantial.
The State conceded that finding was error.
Statutory framework requires willful, substantial violation proven by a preponderance; if not, court lacks authority to revoke probation or adjudicate guilt; probation term had expired by revocation hearing.
The appellate court reverses the adjudication and the conviction on both offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the probation violation was willful and substantial.	Lindsay	Lindsay	Not willful and substantial; reversal warranted
Whether the trial court had authority to revoke probation and adjudicate guilt.	Lindsay sought revocation authority	Court lacked authority without willful/substantial violation	Court lacked authority; reversal of guilt adjudications
Effect of probation expiration at revocation hearing.	Lindsay	Not material	Probation term expired; revocation/ adjudication improper

Williamson v. State, 43 So.3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (probation violation requires willful/substantial violation showings)
Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (prosecution bears preponderance on willful violation)
Salzano v. State, 664 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (relevance to willful/substantial standard)
Thorpe v. State, 642 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (willfulness as factual question)
Riggins v. State, 830 So.2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (willful/substantial determination fact-based)
Clark v. State, 579 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1991) (probation enhancement requires formal charge and procedure)
Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1994) (probation modification rules; authority limits)