IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF THE STATE OF
v. Appeal No: 066707CFAWS
Lower No: 0504852MMAWS
Joseph P. Hobson, Esq.,
Robert l. Ehrhardt, Esq, A.S.A. .
ORDER AND OPINION
Appellant was charged with battery on July 20, 2005. On February 23, 2006, appellant entered a plea of no lo contendere, receiving a twelve month probation with anger management and fines of $645.00.
On July 14, 2006, appellant’s probation officer, John Rowland, filed an affidavit alleging a violation of probation based upon appellant’s arrest on June 9, 2006 for the crimes of DUI and Felony DWLS. On August 2, 2006, Officer Rowland filed a follow up affidavit adding on the violation that the appellant had failed to pay the cost of supervision.
On November 13, 2006, appellant had an evidentiary hearing on the alleged violations, one of which was the appellant’s arrest for DUI. In the course of the testimony of Pasco Deputy Michael Toczylwoski, he was asked if the investigation was videotaped, and the deputy replied that it was, audio and video, and that it was impounded as evidence. At that point, defense counsel informed the court that they were not provided with a copy of that video. The defense attorney said “Defense is not ready at this time based on the fact that we have not been provided with evidence.” The state attorney stated “Your Honor, I am sure they have the evidence in their felony file.” The court said the case will proceed, and that he was not going to continue it. At that point, defense counsel stated “[f]or the record I continue to object to continuing with this proceeding without being able to review all of the evidence available…”. The state advised the court that they had no intention of using the video tape. Defense counsel said “It could exonerate my client, for all I know.” The court stated the case would proceed. Appellant argues that this was error, this Court agrees.
A defendant in a probation
revocation proceeding is entitled to reasonable discovery pursuant to Florida
Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220. Cuciak
v. State 410 So.2d 916 (
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the judgment and sentence is REVERSED.
AND ORDERED in Chambers, at New Port Richey,
Daniel D. Diskey
Copies furnished to:
Joseph T. Hobson, Esq.
Office of the State Attorney