GOODRICH BOOTH PRATT, 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.
A condition of probation must be reasonably related to the offense committed and the rehabilitation of the offender; otherwise, it may be stricken.
Goodrich Pratt, convicted of grand theft, was placed on probation with a condition barring affiliation with the legal profession. Pratt was a member o…
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Goodrich Pratt appeals a condition of his probation that he not be affiliated with the legal profession. We find the condition unrelated to either the offense or his rehabilitation and strike the condition.
The record reflects that Pratt, a member of an out-of-state bar with an application pending before the Florida Bar was adjudicated guilty of one count of grand theft. He was sentenced to ten years in prison but was to be released on probation after serving one year. One of the conditions of his probation was that he was “not to be affiliated with the legal profession.”
The supreme court has held that a condition of probation must be reasonably related to the offense committed and the rehabilitation of the offender. Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1979). See also Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We do not find that the condition of probation prohibiting this offender from “being affiliated with the legal profession” is reasonably related to the offense of grand theft or to his rehabilitation.
Further, we agree with Pratt’s argument that the condition may be unconstitutionally vague and insufficient to apprise him of which otherwise lawful acts are prohibited. Norris v. State, 383 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We therefore strike the condition of probation.
DANAHY, C.J., and RYDER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2007)…o. 2d 183, 185 (Fla.1978); see also Zachary v. State, 559 So. 2d 105, 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (striking a condition for vagueness where the order did not “sufficiently apprise [probationer] of what she must do or refrain from doing”); Pratt v. State, 516 So. 2d 328, 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (finding condition “insufficient to apprise [probationer] of which otherwise lawful acts are prohibited”); Mastick v. State, 409 So. 2d 203, 204 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“A probation order must sufficiently instruct the probatione…
-
Demott v. State, 194 So. 3d 335 (Fla. 2016)…valid, more precise definition of associating with persons engaged in criminal activities. Moreover, the special condition in this case does not rise to the level of probation conditions deemed vague in other cases. For instance, in Pratt v. State, 516 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), the appellant, a member of an out-of-state bar and a Flori [*340] da Bar applicant, was convicted of grand theft. He was sentenced to ten years in state prison but was placed on probation after one year and ordered “not to be aff…
-
Cole v. State, 521 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…hereby stricken. Bodden v. State, 411 So. 2d 1391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Brodus v. State, 449 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Wilkinson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Pratt v. State, 516 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The judgments and sentences are otherwise affirmed. BOOTH and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1979)
- Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Norris v. State, 383 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)