NETTIE WALKER, 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.
Walker appeals a probation condition requiring her to purchase and retain $160 worth of earrings from the store she stole from during her two-year probation period. The Florida Court of Appeal reversed, finding the condition was so punitive and unrelated to rehabilitation that it constituted an abuse of discretion, particularly given Walker's extreme financial hardship.
The court held that the special condition was an abuse of discretion because, given Walker's financial circumstances, the condition was so punitive and unrelated to rehabilitation that it could not be imposed. The trial court's broad discretion in imposing probation conditions is not unbridled and must serve the purpose of rehabilitation rather than punishment.
[1] A special condition of probation is invalid if it is so punitive that it is unrelated to rehabilitation.
[2] A trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions that foster rehabilitation.
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 trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining the conditions of probation; however, such discretion is not unbridled. The purpose of probation is primarily to rehabilitate and not primarily to punish.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that probation discretion has limits and must serve rehabilitation, not punishment.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalker, a 20-year-old unemployed mother with only $178 monthly in welfare assistance, pleaded no contest to stealing approximately $160 worth of earri…
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 Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Walker appeals from an order of probation. She challenges the imposition of a special condition of probation. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
The State accused Walker of stealing approximately $160 worth of earrings from the Gayfers Department Store at the Tallahassee Mall. She pleaded no contest to grand retail theft.
The trial court withheld adjudication and placed Walker on two years probation. As a special condition of probation, Walker was required to purchase $160 worth of earrings from Gayfers and keep them in her possession during the period of probation. Walker’s counsel objected saying, “I don’t think this is a proper form of restitution.” The trial court responded, “I don’t look upon it as restitution. I look upon it as part of a rehabilitation step under probation.”
According to the presentence investigation report, Walker is a 20-year old unemployed mother of one with a total monthly income of $178 in welfare assistance. Walker was certified insolvent for purposes of appeal, and the challenged special condition was stayed pending appeal. The stolen earrings were returned to Gayfers undamaged.
Walker argues the special condition is not valid as a means of achieving restitution or rehabilitation. The State concedes it is invalid as restitution, but argues it is valid as a means of achieving rehabilitation because it is reasonably related to the crime and may help Walker acquire a greater respect for the rights of others.
Initially, we find this issue properly presented for consideration on the merits. To preserve the issue for review, the defendant must object when the condition is imposed or file a motion with the trial court to strike or correct the condition. Myers v. State, 426 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Walker’s counsel made a specific objection when the trial court announced the condition.
The trial court has broad discretion to impose probation conditions which, in the trial court’s opinion, foster rehabilitation. Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Section 948.03(4), Florida Statutes (1983).
In Kominsky v. State, 330 So. 2d 800 at 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), however, this court said:
The trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining the conditions of probation; however, such discretion is not unbridled. The purpose of probation is primarily to rehabilitate and not primarily to punish. A special condition of probation which is so punitive that it is unrelated to rehabilitation cannot be imposed in lieu of a sentence. In view of Walker’s financial circumstances, the effect of the challenged condition “is so punitive that it is unrelated to rehabilitation.” Imposition of the condition was therefore an abuse of discretion.
Reversed and remanded for resentencing.
SHIVERS and WENTWORTH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bernie I. Parker v. State, 478 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ecause the issues raised by Dai-ley did not relate to the trial court’s failure to follow mandatory requirements of the statute. Consequently, the First District distinguished Dailey from State v. Rhoden, 448 So. 2d 1013 (Fla.1984), Walker v. State, 461 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1984), and State v. Snow, 462 So. 2d 455 (Fla.1985). On rehearing, the first district certified to the supreme court the question of whether the contemporaneous objection rule precludes appellate review of a guidelines sentencing error involvin…
-
Williams v. State, 474 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…probation period. Incarceration for nine months was a condition of that probation. Additionally, as a rehabilitative step and not a restitution measure, Williams was required to purchase the recovered stolen property. This court, in Walker v. State, 461 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), held that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a similar special condition of probation, and reversed and remanded that case for resentencing. The affirming of the trial court’s probation order in the case at bar me…
-
Brunson v. State, 537 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…bjected to the conditions when they were imposed nor filed a motion to strike or correct the challenged conditions. These allegedly improper conditions should have been brought to the trial court’s attention before appeal was taken. Walker v. State, 461 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Myers v. State, 426 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Accordingly, we affirm the order of probation without prejudice to the appellant to file a motion pursuant to Rule 3.800, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. AFFIRMED. ZEH…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Kominsky v. State, 330 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)
- Myers v. State, 426 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)