ROBERT L. CHATMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Robert Chatman's probation was revoked based on alleged violations of employment and supervision cost requirements. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the revocation, holding that the state failed to prove willful violations and that one condition was imposed without proper court authority.
The court reversed the revocation on two grounds: (1) the state failed to establish that Chatman willfully and without fault failed to maintain employment as required by law; and (2) a probationer cannot be violated for breach of a requirement imposed by a probation officer rather than by the court, which alone has authority to impose probation conditions.
[1] Probation may not be revoked solely for violation of an instruction from a probation officer if that instruction was not a condition of probation set by the court.
[2] Only a court may set the conditions upon which probation may be revoked.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the state, in attempting to prove this belatedly-filed technical violation, did not, as was required, establish that the probationer had willfully and not "without fault" failed to maintain employment”
Establishes the legal standard that probation violations must be willful; the state failed to meet this burden
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChatman was on three-year probation for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Three months before probation expiration, his probation was revo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful And Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
Associate Judge.
Three months before his three year probation imposed for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon was due to expire, Chatman’s probation was revoked; he was adjudicated guilty, and sentenced to fifteen, later mitigated to five years imprisonment. Upon our determination that the record does not demonstrate a violation of the terms of the defendant’s probation, we reverse the judgment below.
Chatman was charged with and found guilty of violating two conditions of the probation, those requiring him to “work diligently at a lawful occupation” and to “carry out all instructions” of his supervisor. As to the first, the record shows only that Chatman had held two jobs during the 33 month period in question, the second of which had terminated (a year before the affidavit of violation was filed) because of difficulties with his co-workers which may have been racially related. While Chat-man’s work record may not have been bee-like, the state, in attempting to prove this belatedly-filed technical violation, did not, as was required, establish that the probationer had willfully and not “without fault” failed to maintain employment. Coulson v. State, 342 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Hence this basis for the revocation cannot be upheld. See also Page v. State, 363 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Freiberger v. State, 343 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Bienz v. State, 343 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); § 948.03(l)(e), Fla. Stat. (1977) (permitting condition that probationer “work faithfully at suitable employment insofar as may be possible”).
The other ground is similarly unsupportable. The probationer was found guilty of violating his supervisor’s instructions to pay $10.00 per month for his cost of supervision. It is firmly settled, however, that a probationer may not be violated for breach of a requirement imposed, as was this one, by his probation officer, rather than by the court, which has the sole lawful authority to do so. Barber v. State, 344 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1977); Page v. State, supra.
The order of revocation and the judgment and sentence are therefore reversed and the cause remanded with directions to discharge the defendant.
Reversed and Remanded.
LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…he question is whether the admitted violation justifies revocation of probation. Probation may be revoked only upon a showing that the probationer deliberately and willfully violated one or more conditions of probation. See, e.g., Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). There must have been a willful violation. Kolovrat v. State, 574 So. 2d 294, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Hightower v. State, 529 So. 2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Moreover, a violation which triggers a revocation of probation mus…
-
Shaw v. State, 391 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…t to look for him about a week later. His testimony that he had no transportation, thus could not deliver the report was also not disputed. To support a revocation of probation, the violation must be willful as well as substantial. Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Where a defendant makes reasonable efforts to comply with probation conditions, his failure to do so may not be willful. Gardner v. State, 365 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). As will be seen, slightly more than one week later,…
-
Stevens v. State, 599 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…story, the trial court’s ruling is surely understandable. It is not, however, supported by the applicable law that probation may be revoked only upon a showing that the probationer has deliberately and willfully violated its terms. Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). However inept and negligent his conduct, the record does not support the conclusion that Stevens willfully or deliberately missed the meeting. See Jacobsen v. State, 536 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (no willful violation of con…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Page v. State, 363 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Coulson v. State, 342 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Barber v. State, 344 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Freiberger v. State, 343 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Bienz v. State, 343 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)