Watson v. State

Mark WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 14, 1986.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-11-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“by a valid order of revocation or the running of its term, and not by the mere execution of an arrest warrant for violation of probation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 649 So. 2d 326 - Gordon v. State

Relies on McNeill v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-11-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2014

8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1T. Whitney Strickland, Jr., Tallahassee, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and John M. Koenig, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

¶3WIGGINTON, Judge.

¶4We affirm the order revoking appellant's probation. Probation is terminated only by a valid order of revocation or the running of its term, and not by the mere execution of an arrest warrant for violation of probation. See section 948.06, Fla. Stat.; cf. McNeill v. State,287 So.2d 745 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (the issuance of a warrant assures continued jurisdiction of the trial court to revoke probation, despite the fact that the period of probation has run in the interim).

¶5AFFIRMED.

¶6ERVIN and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.