Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

State of Florida v. Cahrles fetterly

Date: 02-07-2025

Case Number: 2009-CF-32860

Judge: David C. Koenig

Court: Circuit Court, Brevard County, Florida

Plaintiff's Attorney: Brevard County, Florida District Attorney's Office

Defendant's Attorney:





Click Here For The Best Viera Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory





Description:
Viera, Florida criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with a felony.



The State of Florida make application for an order revoking/terminating his probation.



The motion was granted and Defendant was sentenced to serve 47 months in prison.



* * *



Legal issue Must a court order revoking probation explicitly state the specific conditions violated when probation is revoked and terminated?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. PROBATION REVOCATION. The case involves an appeal regarding the revocation and termination of probation, where the appellant admitted to violating the terms of probation, leading to a sentence agreement. The court affirmed the decision but remanded for an order specifying the violated conditions that justified the revocation and termination of probation.



Key Phrases Revoking probation. Terminating probation. Violation of probation. Order terminating probation. Unsatisfactory termination.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of State of Florida v. Cahrles fetterly?

The outcome was: Affirmed

Which court heard State of Florida v. Cahrles fetterly?

This case was heard in Circuit Court, Brevard County, Florida, FL. The presiding judge was David C. Koenig.

Who were the attorneys in State of Florida v. Cahrles fetterly?

Plaintiff's attorney: Brevard County, Florida District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Viera Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.

When was State of Florida v. Cahrles fetterly decided?

This case was decided on February 7, 2025.