Summary
In Mastick, the appellate court held it was error for the trial court to find the defendant in violation of probation for failure to report to the probation intake office, where neither the probation order nor transcript of plea proceeding evidenced such a condition.
Summary of this case from Gaal v. StateOpinion
No. 81-1095.
February 2, 1982.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, John A. Tanksley, J.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Beth C. Weitzner, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Alan T. Lipson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, NESBITT and FERGUSON, JJ.
Where neither the probation order nor transcript of plea proceeding evidenced that, as a condition of probation defendant was to report to the Probation Intake office after completion of a six-month jail term, it was error to find him in violation of probation three (3) years later for failure to report and to impose an additional six-month period of incarceration. An unmarked condition on a standard probation form is not, explicitly or implicitly, part of the agreement between the parties. Croteau v. State, 334 So.2d 577 (Fla. 1976). A probation order must sufficiently instruct the probationer as to what he must do or refrain from doing while on probation. Gardner v. State, 365 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Reversed.