Title: Bernhardt v. State

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

288 So. 2d 490 (1974)
Gideon BERNHARDT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 43335.

Supreme Court of Florida.
January 9, 1974.
*491 William W. Fernandez of Fernandez & Scarito, Orlando, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Nelson E. Bailey and Stephen R. Koons, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
ROBERTS, Justice.
This appeal has been transferred to us by the District Court of Appeal, Fourth *492 District, pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 2.1, subd. a(5), 32 F.S.A., to review an order of the Circuit Court of Orange County which revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him to eighteen months confinement with credit for time served in the county jail pending the probation revocation hearing. The order revoking probation inferentially passed on the constitutionality of Section 949.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., since petitioner's motion to dismiss the warrant for violation of probation was based on the ground that said statute is unconstitutionally void for vagueness and the trial court specifically denied appellant's motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds and found this statute to be constitutional. Furthermore, the trial judge stated that the proceeding before it was pursuant to Section 949.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., and subsequently entered the order revoking probation. We have jurisdiction of this cause pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b) (1), Florida Constitution, F.S.A. (1973). See Evans v. Carroll, 104 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1958); Harrell's Candy Kitchen v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, 111 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1959); Demko's Gold Coast Trailer Park v. Palm Beach County, 218 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 1969).
On February 3, 1972, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of LSD and was placed on probation for a term of three years in accordance with Chapter 948, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. On December 19, 1972, an affidavit for violation of probation was filed against appellant for violation of condition H of his probation, to-wit: live and remain at liberty without violating any law, in that the appellant was arrested on December 15, 1972 and charged by the Orange County Sheriff's Office with Count 1, possession of narcotic paraphernalia; Count 2, possession of narcotic drug; Count 3, possession of stolen property, in violation of Florida Statute 949.10, F.S.A. A warrant for his arrest was issued December 19, 1972, and on that same date appellant appeared in open court for arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty to violation of condition H of his probation. On December 21, 1972, appellant appeared for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 949.11, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. Prior to testimony being taken, appellant's attorney orally made a motion to dismiss the warrant for violation of probation in this cause on the grounds that the statute (F.S. § 949.10, F.S.A.) upon which this information or warrant is based is unconstitutionally void for vagueness and ambiguity in that, appellant's counsel urged, it does not apprise the defendant of what crime or what he has to avoid in order to avoid enactment of the penalties of that statute and in that defendant cannot defend or avoid the prohibitions of the act since a police officer could arrest him without cause and such arrest would constitute a violation of this statute. As further grounds for said motion to dismiss the warrant for violation of probation, appellant's counsel stated that section 949.10 is in violation of defendant's Florida and Federal constitutional rights to due process of law in that it does not provide him with an opportunity to be heard within any reasonable period of time and because during the 10-day period mentioned in Section 949.11, he is not allowed to receive any bail until after the hearing F.S. § 949.12, F.S.A.).
In response to said motion to dismiss the charge of violation of probation, the prosecution pointed out that the statute in question has built-in protections in that, inter alia, the statute itself calls for a hearing within ten days from the date of arrest rather than denying a hearing and that this statute is simply an instrument by which a person can be brought back to jail and then if not given a hearing within the required time or the arrest is determined to be invalid, he is eligible to be released immediately.
The trial court, at this stage of the proceedings and prior to the taking of testimony, regarding the propriety of probation revocation, denied the motion to dismiss on constitutional grounds.
*493 The state's two witnesses were then called and their testimony taken. Appellant took the stand and testified on his own behalf. Pertinent to points on appeal posited by appellant other than the constitutionality vel non of Section 949.10, are the following facts appearing in the transcript of the hearing relative to search of appellant's automobile, seizure of narcotic paraphernalia therefrom, and arrest of appellant for possession of narcotic paraphernalia and narcotic drug. At the hearing, Deputy Sheriff Russell Calamia, assigned to the special investigation division of the Orange County Sheriff's Office, testified that at the time he searched appellant's auto and arrested him on a felony charge, he was executing a search warrant, the validity of which is not contested, of the premises. The search warrant described in detail the dwelling to be searched including the yard and curtilage thereof. While executing the search warrant, Calamia observed appellant drive up and park his car off the street on the yard in front of the premises designated in the warrant. Appellant testified that he resided at this location. Deputy Sheriff Calamia testified, inter alia, that in the execution of an affidavit and search warrant on the premises of 1229 West 18th Street, he and Agent Speaker searched appellant's automobile which was parked on the yard in front of the house and within the curtilage wherein they found narcotic drug (cannabis) in plain view behind the front passenger seat on the floor and found two items of narcotic paraphernalia and a letter addressed to appellant in the glove compartment; that after the search of appellant's car, they placed appellant under arrest for possession of cannabis and possession of narcotic paraphernalia and read him his Miranda rights. The record before this court supports appellee's assertion that no pre-trial motion to suppress evidence concerned in the revocation hearing was filed pursuant to Rule 3.190(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 33 F.S.A. Furthermore, appellee properly states that the record nowhere reflects that any testimony or evidentiary items were introduced into evidence during the state's case over appellant's objection on grounds that the arrest was illegal, and that the legality of the arrest was not challenged by the appellant until after the state had completed its presentation of the case. Appellant after testimony of the state's witnesses orally made a motion for directed judgment on the ground that there had been no violation of probation which motion the trial court denied. At this juncture, the trial court reminded counsel for appellant that this was a probation revocation hearing pursuant to Section 949.10 and was not a hearing on a motion to suppress, that such a motion could later be raised on his new charges, but that this hearing was being held to determine whether appellant did or did not violate his probation previously entered on February 3, 1972. Appellant was then given an opportunity by the court to explain away the accusation against him. After appellant completed his testimony, the prosecutor acknowledged that the state had the burden to show that appellant had violated a condition of his probation, in this case had violated the law. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the state had proven that appellant had violated condition H of the order entered February 3, 1972, revoked appellant's probation and sentenced him to eighteen months confinement with credit for time served in county jail pending the probation revocation hearing.
The primary question presented by appellant for our determination is the constitutionality vel non of Section 949.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., which provides, as follows:
Other pertinent statutory provisions, provide:
Initially, we must remark that the grant of probation rests within the broad discretion of the trial judge and is a matter of grace rather than right extended to the offender usually on the basis of a pre-sentence investigation which suggests that he is not likely to repeat his conduct and could be rehabilitated while at liberty under supervision. Statutory provisions which set out the procedures for extending probation privileges to those found guilty of violations of criminal laws are not mandatory on trial judges. Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So. 2d 607 (1947); State *495 ex rel. Roberts v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1962); Martin v. State, 243 So. 2d 189 (Fla.App. 1971). The underlying concept of probation is rehabilitation rather than punishment and presupposes the fact that probationer is not in prison confinement, Roy v. State, 207 So. 2d 52 (Fla.App. 1967), cert. dismissed, Fla., 211 So. 2d 554. The purpose of the granting of probation as was allowed by the trial court sub judice pursuant to Section 948.01(1) without an actual adjudication of guilt, is rehabilitation of one who has committed the crime charged without formally and judicially branding the individual as a convicted criminal and without consequent loss of civil rights and other damning consequences. Delaney v. State, 190 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 1966). One placed on probation is placed under the authority of the state probation and parole commission to be supervised as provided by law. See Rule 3.790(a), Florida Criminal Rules, Chapters 947, 948 and 949, Florida Statutes. Corollary to a defendant being placed on probation because it is more than likely that he will not repeat criminal conduct is the proposition that he is not entitled to remain at large if he persists in criminal tendencies, State v. Cochran, supra.
In addition to his discretion to grant probation, the trial judge has certain broad discretionary power to revoke probation. Bronson v. State, 148 Fla. 188, 3 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1941); Brill v. State, supra; State v. Cochran, supra; Manning v. United States, 161 F.2d 827 (5 Cir.1947); Martin v. State, 243 So. 2d 189 (Fla.App. 1971).
However, this discretionary power must be exercised in accordance with certain due process requirements. We must point out that long before the Supreme Court of the United States rendered its decisions in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S. Ct. 1756, 36 L. Ed. 656 (1973), this Court recognized due process required that a hearing must be accorded to the person charged before probation could be revoked and the evidence upon which to predicate a revocation introduced at the hearing must be sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition of probation has been violated. Brill v. State, supra; Roberts v. State, 154 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 1963); Martin v. State, supra.
In accordance with the philosophy pronounced by the Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, this Court very early announced, the following:
Appellant raises several points on appeal. There are several facets to appellant's attack of unconstitutionality directed to Section 949.10. Preliminarily, appellant urges that the questioned statute is violative of his due process right in that it is unconstitutionally vague. He argues that it does not apprise him of what conduct he must avoid in order to avoid the penalties provided therein. This contention is based on appellant's fallacious supposition that one mere arrest without probable cause is sufficient pursuant to Section 949.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., to immediately revoke probation. Section 949.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is neither vague nor indefinite but rather is sufficiently clear to give reasonable notice to a probationer or parolee as to what conduct will render them liable to its penalties. See Brock v. Hardie, 114 Fla. 670, 154 So. 690 (1934); Zachary v. State, 269 So. 2d 669 (Fla. 1972); Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State ex rel. Powell, 262 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1972); Newman v. Carson, 280 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1973); State v. Lindsay, Fla., 284 So. 2d 377, decided October 24, 1973. Such criminal conduct as would give rise to probable cause for a felony arrest must be avoided. Implicit in the language of Section 949.10, to-wit: subsequent arrest on a felony charge is that the arrest be lawful in accordance with Chapter 901, Florida Statutes, based on probable cause that the probationer or parolee has committed a felony or on a warrant buttressed by a judicial determination of probable cause. Florida law nowhere authorizes a mere arrest without probable cause.
Section 949.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., read in para materia with Sections 949.11 and 949.12, Florida Statutes, F.S.A, provides that prior to the revocation hearing to be conducted pursuant to the requirements of Section 948.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., the probationer who has been arrested on a felony charge shall not be permitted to be admitted to bail. Argument is made by appellant that this provision acts to deprive him of his constitutionally guaranteed right to bail. Pursuant to the constitutional power vested in it by Article V, Section 2(a), Florida Constitution 1973 (previously Article V, Section 3), to promulgate rules of practice and procedure, this Court adopted Rule 3.790, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides, inter alia, that the granting of bail to a probationer pending the final revocation of probation hearing is discretionary with the trial judge. In pertinent part said rule states "... the court may commit or release him with or without bail to await further hearing... ." Rules of practice and procedure adopted by this Court supercede any legislative enactment governing practice and procedure to extent that statute and rule may be inconsistent. Jaworski v. The City of Opa-Locka, Florida, 149 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 1963); In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 272 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1973); In re *497 Clarification of Florida Rules of Practice and Procedure (Florida Constitution, Article V, Section 2(a)), 281 So. 2d 204 (Fla. 1973). Insofar as Section 949.10 purports to deprive the court of its discretion in determining whether bail should be granted, this portion of the statute is superceded by Rule 3.790, Fla.Cr.P.R. attempting to distinguish between practice and procedure which this Court regulates and substantive law, this Court explained in In re Rules of Criminal Procedure, 272 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 1973):
Although by rule this Court has allowed the granting of bail to be discretionary pending probation revocation, we note that courts have held that bail pending revocation of probation or parole is not a guaranteed constitutional right. In In re Matter of Whitney, 421 F.2d 337 (C.C.A.1, 1970), petitioner urged that he had a constitutional right to bail pending decision of his violation. To this contention the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, responded that petitioner has no such constitutional right and opined, inter alia, as follows:
In United States ex rel. Mason v. Amico, 360 F. Supp. 1344 (W.D.N.Y., 1973), the court construing Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972), and quoting the following portion therefrom,
concluded that the granting of bail to a suspected parole violator is not constitutionally required. The pronouncements of the aforestated federal cases are in accord with Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, wherein the Supreme Court of the United States found that due process required that the typical process of parole revocation include two stages, to-wit: the arrest and preliminary hearing to determine probable cause for retention and the revocation hearing, but also found that the revocation of parole is not part of criminal prosecution and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to parole revocations, and are in accord with Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, wherein the Supreme Court extended its pronouncements in Morrissey to probation revocation proceedings but in addition determined that probation revocation like parole revocation is not a stage of criminal prosecution but does result in loss of liberty. See also State v. Shelby, 97 So. 2d 631 (Fla.App. 1957).
The next issue for our determination is whether the procedure for revocation of probation established by Section 949.10, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., accords with the minimal due process requirements set out in Morrissey and made applicable to probation revocations through Gagnon.
The Supreme Court in Morrissey after acknowledging that a parolee is not entitled to the rights of a defendant in a criminal prosecution, announced that he was entitled to due process although additionally explicating that the concept of due process is flexible and that not all situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same procedure. Turning to the process due a parolee, the Supreme Court set out what it considered to be the two *499 important stages of the typical parole revocation:
In Gagnon, the Supreme Court summarized its ruling in Morrissey,
*500 and determined that a probationer like a parolee is entitled to a preliminary and a final revocation hearing under the conditions specified in Morrissey.
The instant proceedings provided pursuant to Sections 949.10, 949.11, and 948.06 clearly accord with the mandates of Morrissey and Gagnon. As aforestated, prior to arrest for felony, probable cause that probationer has committed a felony must exist, and commission of a felony is clearly in violation of condition H of appellant's probation. The sole purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a probationer or parolee has violated the terms of his probation or parole.
Appellant asserts that ten days is not a reasonable time within the requisite of Morrissey that the revocation hearing be tendered within a reasonable time after the parolee is taken into custody. However, the Supreme Court stated in Morrissey that a lapse of two months which occurs in some cases would not appear to be unreasonable. Sub judice, appellant was given a full evidentiary hearing consistent with Morrissey and Gagnon, was represented by counsel, and was given the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
Strict rules of evidence are not required to be observed in probation revocation hearings. Morrissey v. Brewer, supra; Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra; Brill v. State, supra; McNeely v. State, supra.
Appellant argues sub judice that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike all evidence obtained in that, he alleges, the search of his auto constituted an illegal search and seizure. Without reaching the propriety of the search and seizure at this point, we note that evidence which may not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial would be admissible in probation or parole revocation proceedings. Morrissey v. Brewer, supra. Specifically, this Court held in Brill v. State, supra, that even though certain evidence secured by search of accused's premises without a warrant and during his absence was illegally secured and was inadmissible at main trial for liquor violation, or at any trial for making moonshine liquor, trial court did not abuse his discretion in considering such evidence relative to the issue of whether a suspended sentence during good behavior should be revoked.
In State v. Shelby, supra, the District Court of Appeal, First District stated that in probation revocation proceedings,
Sub judice, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in considering the narcotic drug, and narcotics paraphernalia seized from appellant's automobile.
Appellant argues that the search and seizure of his automobile and his consequent arrest was illegal. Apparently, from the testimony produced at the hearing the narcotic drug was in plain view in appellant's automobile and the officers conducting the search recognized it to be contraband. With this evidence in hand there existed probable cause for arrest of appellant pursuant to Section 901.15, Florida Statutes. State v. Perez, 277 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1973); State v. Parnell, 221 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 1969); Lindsey v. State, 184 So. 2d 437 (Fla.App. 1966); Beacham v. State, 175 So. 2d 796 (Fla.App. 1965); Cf. Alexander v. State, 108 So. 2d 308 (Fla.App. 1959).
*501 We have carefully considered all other points raised by appellant in the instant cause and find them to be without merit.
On appeal of a probation revocation, the question is whether the lower court has abused its discretion. Proof sufficient to support a criminal conviction is not required to support a judge's discretionary order revoking probation. Manning v. United States, supra; Brill v. State, supra. This Court has held that a formal conviction of a crime is not essential to enable the judge to revoke an order of probation. Brill v. State, supra; See also Borges v. State, 249 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1971); Roberts v. State, 154 So. 2d 695 (Fla.App. 1963). Specifically in State v. Cochran, supra, this Court opined:
All due process requisites to which appellant was entitled were accorded him; the evidence was sufficient to justify revocation; and the trial court did not abuse his discretion in revoking probation.
Accordingly the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
CARLTON, C.J., dissents.
ERVIN, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part with opinion.
ERVIN, Justice (concurring in part, dissenting in part):
The issues herein are simple:
I. Whether F.S. Section 949.10, F.S.A., is facially constitutional, and
II. Whether the trial judge erred in revoking appellant's probation.
Jurisdiction arises from the trial judge's denial of appellant's oral motion to dismiss revocation proceedings pursuant to Section 949.10 on constitutional grounds. Appellant properly contended then as now that Section 949.10 must be read in pari materia with Sections 949.11 and 949.12. I accept the facts as stated by the majority except to emphasize that appellant was not adjudicated guilty prior to being placed on probation and to add that all charges were nolle prossed after revocation was ordered.
Section 949.10 provides essentially that a subsequent felony arrest of a probationer constitutes prima facie evidence of probation violation, immediately revokes probation upon such arrest and denies the right to bail until hearing. Section 949.10 operates together with Sections 949.11 and 949.12. Section 949.11 requires a hearing within ten days of arrest and Section 949.12 denies bail prior to the hearing provided in Section 949.11.
First, as to Appellant's argument that Section 949.10 is unconstitutional for vagueness, I concur with the majority although I could not agree on the same ground as to another statute in Lindsey v. State, supra, cited by the majority as authority for upholding Section 949.10 here. I must also concur in the majority's observations as to the nature and purpose of probation.
Second, I agree with Appellant's argument that on the facts herein the combined effect of Section 949.10 together with Sections 949.11 and 949.12 deprives him of his constitutional right to bail. But I also agree with the majority, which declines to reach the issue of constitutionality *502 on the ground of denial of bail, in finding that so far as Section 949.10 deprives the court of its discretion in granting bail it is superseded by Rule 3.790, Fla.Cr.P.R. since rules of practice and procedure adopted by this Court supersede any legislation inconsistent therewith.
While the federal courts have held that denial of bail to a suspected probation violator is not violative of the federal constitution, the statute must also meet the test of the Florida Constitution which in Article I, Section 14 imposes a different standard:
Section 949.10 provides for a probationer subject to the statute to "remain in custody until a hearing ..." Section 949.12 provides for temporary denial of bail to "any person whose probation has been temporarily revoked pursuant to § 949.10" (Emphasis supplied.) In the instant case Appellant was never adjudged guilty prior to being placed on probation and as such he never lost his civil rights and was still entitled to bail under the above constitutional provision. Yet he was not bailable under Sections 949.10 and 949.12. Without supersession by the rule of that part of Section 949.10 which would eliminate the discretionary element in granting bail, Section 949.10 as applied would fail the constitutional test and fall to higher authority. I would strike it down on other grounds, but if the statute stands it should be made clear that it must operate without denying bail with reference made to the discretion vested in the trial judge by Rule 3.790.
Third, I cannot agree with the majority that Section 949.10 meets the minimum due process requirements of Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, as made applicable to probation revocation by Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, or that such requirements were afforded Appellant here. As I read Morrissey and Gagnon, two revocation hearings are required, each with its own minimum requirements of due process. In Gagnon the United States Supreme Court unequivocally said:
With regard to the hearings themselves, the Court said:
Section 949.10, however, expressly preempts one of the two hearings the Supreme Court mandated as minimum requirements and by so doing, at least in this case, encourages "ill-considered revocation." The statute provides that a subsequent felony arrest of a probationer shall be prima facie evidence of the violation of the terms and conditions of such ... probation." (Emphasis supplied.) Yet Morrissey and Gagnon impose a preliminary hearing to establish whether there exists such evidence in arriving at a determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to detention of a probationer until a more formal final hearing can be held.
The majority reasons as follows:
Or, in effect, that probable cause sufficient for a felony arrest is sufficient to satisfy the preliminary hearing requirements of Morrissey and Gagnon. The argument fails when comparison is made between the prima facie evidence language of Section 949.10 and the probable cause inherent in a felony arrest on the one hand; the notice of alleged violations, opportunity to appear and present evidence, conditional right to confront adverse witnesses, an independent decisionmaker, and written hearing report, each of which the probationer is entitled to under Morrissey and Gagnon on the other. There are clear substantive as well as procedural differences which cannot be ignored and cannot be swept away by reliance on the state statute. The statute denies a probationer minimum due process as explicated in Morrissey and Gagnon and is therefore unconstitutional.
Fourth, assuming arguendo that due process does not require a preliminary revocation hearing, then the final and only revocation hearing afforded Appellant pursuant to Section 949.10 still fails to comply with the requirements of Morrissey and Gagnon. I have carefully examined the hearing transcript and find it inadequately satisfies element (f) as quoted above from Gagnon. Nowhere in the record is there a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. The transcript and the ruling of the trial court leave the reasoning as to its decision obscured. On this ground alone I would reverse the lower court for denial of due process in light of the requirements herein stated.
I am compelled to find that the lower court erred in revoking Appellant's probation for failure of the state to sufficiently prove violation of Appellant's probation condition H, to wit: "Live and remain at liberty without violating the law." In arriving at this conclusion I have the benefit of hindsight which the trial judge did not have in noting that all charges on which Appellant was initially arrested or with which he was later charged were nolle prossed subsequent to probation revocation and re-sentencing on his prior plea of guilty to possession of LSD. Appellant's probation, however, was not later reciprocally reinstated and Appellant remains in *504 prison despite the lack of a subsequent conviction arising from the facts herein for violation of the law, the very condition of probation he was alleged to have violated. I cannot help but think revocation would not have occurred had all the above requirements of due process been observed, had Appellant been afforded a preliminary hearing, and had his final hearing been delayed until disposition of the charges pending against him, as contemplated in Morrissey and Gagnon.
Finally, I concur in the opinion of the majority that strict rules of evidence must not necessarily be observed in probation revocation hearings. It follows that the trial judge did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress the evidence admitted at the hearing on the ground that Appellant's initial arrest for aiding and abetting a public nuisance was illegal, which the record shows it may well have been, and therefore the search and seizure were illegal and the evidence obtained thereby inadmissible.
In summary, I do not find Section 949.10 void for vagueness, but I would find its provisions denying bail to a probationer who has not yet been adjudged guilty to be unconstitutional subject, however, to modification by Rule 3.790, which effectively reinstates the element of discretion into the revocation process pursuant to the statute. I would further find the statute fails to expressly provide for the minimum requirements of due process of Morrissey and Gagnon, and is thereby unconstitutional. I would find that the foregoing due process requirements were not accorded Appellant by denial of both a preliminary revocation hearing and a written statement setting forth the evidence relied on at the only hearing conducted and the reasons for revocation. I would reinstate Appellant's probation for failure to sufficiently prove violation of Appellant's probation conditions.
Accordingly, I would hold F.S., Section 949.10, F.S.A. unconstitutional and reverse Appellant's probation revocation.