DONNIE WARREN, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed a probation revocation based on violations of two conditions but reversed findings regarding a supervisory fee violation and an improperly imposed substance abuse program condition. The court held that the defendant violated conditions requiring probation officer consent for residence changes and monthly written reports, but lacked sufficient findings regarding ability to pay and proper procedures for the other violations.
The court affirmed the revocation based on violations of conditions 2 and 3, finding substantial evidence of unauthorized residence change and failure to file monthly reports. The court reversed the findings regarding the supervisory fee (condition 9) because the trial court failed to find Warren had the ability to pay, and reversed the substance abuse program condition because it was neither orally pronounced at sentencing nor properly added to the probation order.
[1] Substantial, competent evidence is sufficient to support a trial court's findings of probation violations.
[2] A defendant's testimony that they were not informed of a probation condition is insufficient to overcome the presumption that probation officials fulfilled their duty to…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Appellant's testimony that he was not told to file monthly reports is not sufficient affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption that officials of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation carry out their statutory duty to notify a defendant concerning the terms and conditions of probation.”
Establishes that defendants are presumed to have been properly notified of probation conditions, shifting burden from the state to prove notification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonnie Warren was on probation subject to multiple conditions, including: securing probation officer consent before changing residence (condition 2), …
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 Oral Pronouncement Of Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s revocation of defendant’s probation. We find that there is substantial, competent evidence to support the trial court’s findings that the defendant violated condition (2) requiring that he secure consent of the probation officer before changing his residence and condition (3) requiring that he file written monthly reports with the probation officer. Appellant’s testimony that he was not told to file monthly reports is not sufficient affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption that officials of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation carry out their statutory duty to notify a defendant concerning the terms and conditions of probation. Mobley v. State, 348 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Even if this court considers probationer’s testimony that he was never instructed to file such reports as sufficient affirmative evidence to overcome the presumption, his failure to file reports is still a valid violation since he was advised of his probationary conditions as evidenced by his signature on the probation order. See Mobley, 348 So. 2d at 375. Such failure to file monthly reports is a sufficient ground for revocation. Davis v. State, 474 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); May v. State, 472 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
As to condition (9) requiring that he pay $30 per month as a supervisory fee and the special condition requiring the defendant to enter a substance abuse program, we find that these violations must be reversed. The trial court did not make a finding that the defendant had the ability to pay the fee, Woodard v. State, 371 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Adams v. State, 459 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Furthermore, the special condition was not orally pronounced at the defendant’s sentencing nor was there support in the record for the subsequent addition of this condition on the order of probation. Knapp v. State, 405 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Carmo v. State, 378 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
We affirm the trial court’s order of revocation based only upon violations of conditions (2) and (3) since the record is clear that the lower court would have revoked defendant’s probation for any violations where the defendant failed to follow the rules. Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We reverse as to condition (9) and the special condition and direct the trial court to enter an order striking these two violations from the order of revocation of probation.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McPHERSON v. State, 530 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…440 So. 2d 661. Count IX alleged that appellant failed to report to his probation officer as ordered. Failure to file monthly reports is a substantial violation of probation sufficient by itself to support revocation of probation. Warren v. State, 499 So. 2d 55 [*1099] (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Thomas v. State, 453 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Here, the evidence established that appellant failed to report to his probation officer as ordered. His probation…
-
Jacobsen v. State, 536 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…arly apprised of the condition at a hearing where he was present and acknowledged this condition of his probation. The absence of the written order is not reversible error. Morgan v. State, 341 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). But see Warren v. State, 499 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Jacobsen also argues that the condition imposed was improper. While we agree this condition does not meet the test required to constitute a valid condition of probation as stated in Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DC…
-
Webb v. State, 603 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. As to the first issue, see Warren v. State, 499 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); May v. State, 472 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). As to the second issue, see Watts v. State, 593 So. 2d 198 (Fla.1992). GLICKSTEIN, C.J., and DELL and WARNER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ranzel Davis v. State, 474 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Carmo v. State, 378 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Pritchard v. State, 472 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- MAY v. State, 472 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Knapp v. State, 405 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Woodard v. State, 371 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Mobley v. State, 348 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Adams v. State, 459 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)