ROLAND MOLINA, 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.
Roland Molina appeals the revocation of his probation for allegedly failing to contact enough prospective employers during a job search and failing to properly document the search. The appellate court reversed the revocation, finding the violations were neither willful nor substantial as required by law.
The court reversed the probation revocation, holding that the greater weight of evidence does not support a finding that Molina's actions were willful or substantial violations. The court remanded with instructions to reinstate his probation.
[1] A violation of probation must be willful to justify revocation.
[2] A violation of probation must be substantial, supported by the greater weight of the evidence, to justify revocation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“any violation triggering a revocation of probation must be willful, and that the greater weight of the evidence must show that the violation is substantial”
Establishes the legal standard required for probation revocation in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMolina pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery in July 1986 and was placed on probation for fifteen years. In October 1986, he was accused of contacti…
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 Technical Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Judge.
Roland Molina appeals revocation of his probation based upon his failure to comply with instructions given by his probation officer. He argues that the violations were not willful or substantial. We agree and reverse.
In July 1986 Molina pled guilty to robbery without a weapon, a second-degree felony, and was placed on probation for fifteen years. On October 11, 1986, an affidavit was filed alleging Molina violated a condition of probation, which required him to “comply with all instructions [your probation officer] may give you,” by failing to contact twenty prospective employers during a day-long job search, and by not properly documenting his time on this job search.
A second affidavit alleging the same violation was later filed, adding that Molina had been accompanied by his father on the job search, contrary to rules of the restitution center and verbal instructions of the probation officer. At the revocation hearing, evidence before the court indicated that Molina committed the alleged offenses during his first week of probation. Molina presented a list of fifteen business establishments that he had contacted on the date in question. He testified that he made his own list of businesses contacted to comply with the instructions because some potential employers had refused to sign the list prepared by the restitution center. He further testified he had received four job offers. Molina’s father, who drove him to each business location, verified that he actually visited the fifteen businesses. Molina’s parents testified that they both understood from a probation officer that they were to help their son complete the probation program in any way and that the father drove him to the job sites in order to assist him.
Molina continued in the program for over two weeks before being arrested for this violation, though some temporary disciplinary measures were taken against him. During this time he had no other violations and was employed full-time by a company he had contacted during the job hunt.
After hearing the evidence, the trial judge adjudicated Molina guilty, revoked his probation and sentenced him to seven years in prison with credit for time served. Following the denial of his motion for mitigation, Molina filed this appeal.
The standard of review on a probation revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Holt v. State, 385 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Monda Parole and Probation Commission v. Helton, 313 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). We have previously held that any violation triggering a revocation of probation must be willful, and that the greater weight of the evidence must show that the violation is substantial. Davidson v. State, 419 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
This court has refused to find technical violations sufficient to justify revocation. When the revocation is based on failure to complete a program, we have required a showing that the failure is the probationer’s fault. Davidson v. State, 419 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). For example, in Jordan v. State, 412 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), this court reversed revocation of probation where the facts showed that three of the appellant’s monthly reports were eleven days late because he was in the hospital. The court found that such violations were not substantial or willful.
The greater weight of the evidence does not support the finding that the actions of Molina were willful or substantial. We therefore reverse the order of the trial court revoking Molina’s probation and remand the cause with instructions to reinstate the order of probation.
Reversed and remanded.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and PARKER, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…anania v. State, 855 So. 2d 92, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (using term “preponderance” of the evidence) (citing Stevens v. State, 823 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)); Hightower v. State, 529 So. 2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (citing Molina v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)); Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 630, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Many appellate decisions state that a revocation order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion; in actuality, on appeal, we first assess whether the finding of a willful…1 / 2
-
Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…ward 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 DCA 1988). In Stevens v. State, 599 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order revoking Stevens’ probation where there was evidence of only a technical violation of probation. In…
-
Hightower v. State, 529 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…when he was placed on probation. A violation which triggers a revocation of probation must be willful and substantial and the willful and substantial nature of the violation must be supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Molina v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); see also Drayton v. State, 490 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). The record before this court is not clear as to whether High-tower was advised of the condition that he report to a probation officer. The lack of clarity on this poin…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Holt v. State, 385 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Davidson v. State, 419 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Jordan v. State, 412 So. 2d 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n & Raymond D. Massey v. Helton, 313 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)