51 So. 3d 1250
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Clyde Mathis appeals a probation revocation leading to a 35-year prison term followed by 5 years of probation.
- The trial court revoked probation for alleged violation of condition five (burglary) and condition six (associating with criminals).
- The appellate court affirms the probation revocation based on condition six but remands to strike the finding of burglary (condition five).
- The court concludes the record shows insufficient evidence that Mathis committed burglary as a principal, lacking knowledge or intent to aid the crime.
- On remand, the court may leave the same sentence or reduce it; the sentence is vacated pending reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was burglary proven as a principal offense? | Mathis contends principal theory requires awareness/intent to assist crime. | State argues sufficient evidence shows participation as principal. | Burglary as principal not proven; remand to strike condition five. |
| Did Mathis have knowledge or intent to aid the burglary? | Mathis asserts lack of knowledge of burglary before it occurred. | State relies on statements implying accessory involvement. | No evidence showing knowledge prior to or intent to assist; abuse of discretion on principal theory. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to support probation condition six? | Mathis argues condition six is unfounded. | State contends evidence shows association with criminally involved persons. | Sufficient evidence supports violation of condition six; probation revocation affirmed on this basis. |
| What is the remedy regarding the burglary finding (condition five)? | Matthias should be held not to violate condition five. | State urges upholding all findings unless error is clear. | Remand to strike condition five finding; affirm revocation on remaining basis. |
| What about the sentence after remand? | Mathis seeks the same or reduced sentence depending on remand. | State leaves discretion to modify sentence. | Vacate and remand for reconsideration of sentence; same or reduced sentence may be imposed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miffin v. State, 19 So.3d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (abuse of discretion standard in probation revocation)
- Smith v. State, 502 So.2d 77 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (principle of accessing after the fact does not prove intent)
- A.Y.G. v. State, 414 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (evidence of burglary intent insufficient when present only as accessory)
- J.H. v. State, 370 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (requires knowledge/intent to convict under principal theory)
- Green v. State, 19 So.3d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (probation revocation upheld on alternative basis)
- Johnson v. State, 890 So.2d 490 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (remand discretion regarding sentence after revocation)
- Smith v. State, 705 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (remand for re-sentencing allowed when vacation of conviction/violation occurs)