Case Name: Donald Dee FREDERICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1976-11-05
Citations: 339 So. 2d 251
Docket Number: No. 75-1640
Parties: Donald Dee FREDERICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: CROSS, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 339
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
Donald Dee FREDERICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 75-1640.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Nov. 5, 1976.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 14, 1976.
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Mitchell J. Beers, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Marsha G. Madorsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
ALDERMAN, Judge.
Appellant had been placed on probation for the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony. His probation was subsequently revoked. The order of revocation of probation is now before the court for review.
Appellant was charged and found by the trial court to have violated the conditions of his probation in the following respect:
"Violation of Condition (h) which states, 'Live and remain at liberty without violating any laws', in that on 7-9-75, the aforesaid did admit to Mr. Charles L. Steen of the Florida Parole and Probation Commission, that he was arrested on 7-8-75 by the Orange County Sheriff's Office for Breaking and Entering With Intent to Commit a Misdemeanor, he did, in fact, unlawfully gain entry to Pennington Grain and Seed Company and did, in fact, attempt to siphon gasoline from some of the company trucks."
A careful reading of this allegation discloses that appellant was found to have violated his probation by making certain admissions to his probation officer, to wit: (1) that he had been arrested, (2) that he unlawfully gained entry to Pennington Grain and Seed Company, and (3) that he attempted to siphon gasoline from some of the company trucks. It should be noted that there is no allegation that appellant in fact committed any crime. Appellant's alleged admissions to his probation officer may have been evidence of a crime but the admissions themselves do not constitute a crime.
As stated by this Court in Crum v. State, 286 So.2d 268 (Fla.4th DCA 1973) we do not know why appellant was not charged with the violations which apparently could have been so easily proven. However, fundamental due process requires that revocation of probation be based only on the violation alleged and after hearing. Crum v. State, supra, at 269. The alleged violation of probation for which appellant was found guilty is insufficient as a matter of law to justify a revocation of probation.
REVERSED.
CROSS, J., concurs.
MAGER, C. J., dissents, with opinion.