TYRONE HOWARD, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed a district court decision affirming revocation of Howard's probation for failing to perform assigned work duties at a restitution center. The court clarified that the burden rests on the state to prove willful violation of probation terms, not on the probationer to prove innocence, and affirmed the lower court's finding that Howard willfully violated his probation.
The state bears the burden of establishing that the probationer willfully violated the terms of his probation. On review of the trial court's decision, Howard failed to demonstrate error in the finding that his probation violation was willful and substantive, and the revocation was therefore properly affirmed.
[1] The State bears the burden of proving that a probationer willfully violated the terms of probation.
[2] A probationer's failure to perform assigned duties at a restitution center may constitute a willful violation of probation.
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 burden is on the state to establish that the probationer willfully violated the terms of his probation”
Establishes the correct legal standard for probation violation; burden rests on the state, not the probationer
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Howard, age seventeen, was placed on five years' probation for strong-arm robbery and six months' concurrent probation for simple assault, …
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 Burden Of Proof In Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
SHAW, Justice.
We review Howard v. State, 473 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), based on direct and express conflict with Hudson v. State, 425 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Our jurisdiction is based on article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution.
Petitioner was placed on five years’ probation for strong-arm robbery and six months’ concurrent probation for simple assault. He was assigned a special condition of four months at a restitution center. Work assignments at the center were basically housekeeping chores, such as washing dishes, sweeping floors, and making beds. Upon reporting to the center, petitioner, a seventeen year old, claimed he was unable to do the work because of back trouble and was told twice to see a doctor at a medical center approximately three blocks away in order to obtain an exemption from work. After he failed to do so and persisted in his claimed inability to work, the restitution center filed an affidavit charging that petitioner had violated probation by failing to perform duties as assigned. The trial court heard testimony from the center probation officer and petitioner, and concluded that petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced petitioner to two years at a youthful offender center, followed by two years of community control.
On appeal, the district court affirmed the revocation of probation, subject to entry of a written order on remand, but as reason therefor, stated:
After reviewing the briefs and the record on appeal in this case, we find the appellant failed to demonstrate that his probation violation was not willful and substantive. Therefore, we affirm the revocation of his probation.
Howard, 473 So. 2d at 716. These words may be read in two ways. First, that petitioner had the burden at the revocation hearing to show that his probation violation was not willful and substantive. So read, the district court reason for affirmance would be in conflict with the correct statement of the law in Hudson that the burden is on the state to establish that the probationer willfully violated the terms of his probation. The words might also be read to mean that, on appeal, the petitioner failed to show that the trial court erred in finding that the probation violation was willful and substantive.* Having searched the record, we are satisfied that the trial court did not err. We approve the decision below, as clarified, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, McDONALD and EHRLICH, JJ., concur. *
The record before us does not include the briefs submitted to the district court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)…ot Requiring the State to Establish Willfulness The general principle in probation revocation proceedings is that “the burden is on the state to establish that the probationer willfully violated the terms of [*1012] his probation.” Howard v. State, 484 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla.1986).8 The trial court must “consider each violation on a case-by-case basis for a determination of whether, under the facts and circumstances, a particular violation is willful and substantial and is supported by the greater weight of t…
-
Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…. Kolovrat, 574 So. 2d at 297; Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69, 69-70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hightower, 529 So. 2d at 727. Lastly, the state has the burden to establish that the probationer willfully violated his/her terms of probation. Howard v. State, 484 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla.1986); Ware v. State, 575 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Nonetheless, on appeal, the standard of review of an order of probation revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Molina v. State, 520 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d D…
-
Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…o carry its burden to establish a willful and substantial violation of the community contol conditions directing Smith to submit a truthful public service schedule, to follow his supervisor’s instructions and to pay court costs. See Howard v. State, 484 So. 2d 1232 (Fla.1986); Stevens v. State, 599 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Edwards v. State, 439 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Therefore, that portion of the revocation order is reversed. However, as Smith concedes, the record supports the trial court’s f…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Howard v. State, 473 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Hudson v. State, 425 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)