Simmons v. State
The Third DCA affirmed revocation of Simmons' probation, rejecting his claim that he was improperly compelled to testify against himself at his violation hearing. The court held that a probationer holds only a qualified Fifth Amendment privilege and may be questioned about non-criminal violation conduct (like unauthorized residence changes) without offending the privilege, especially where the State agreed not to use the testimony in the pending new criminal prosecution. The court also affirmed, without prejudice to postconviction relief, on the conceded discrepancy between the oral pronouncement (no violation for failure to pay restitution) and the written revocation order (finding such a violation), because no contemporaneous objection or 3.800(b) motion was filed below.
Key facts
- Simmons was on probation and faced a violation of probation (VOP) hearing where the State questioned him about his conduct, including an unauthorized residence change and failure to pay restitution.
- At the VOP hearing, Simmons claimed he was improperly compelled to testify against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and he challenged a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement (no violation for restitution) and the written revocation order (finding a restitution violation).
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision reinforces the settled but frequently litigated principle that probationers have only a qualified Fifth Amendment privilege at VOP hearings, giving prosecutors and courts continued latitude to question… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.