WILLIE HIGHTOWER, A/K/A WILLIE THOMAS, 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.
Hightower appealed the revocation of his probation for failure to file monthly reports. The court reversed, finding that the state failed to demonstrate Hightower willfully violated a probation condition he was never clearly shown to have received or understood.
The court reversed the probation revocation, holding that the greater weight of the evidence does not support a finding of a willful and substantial violation when the record is unclear whether Hightower was ever advised of the condition to report to a probation officer.
[1] A probation violation must be willful and substantial to trigger revocation.
[2] A defendant's failure to comply with a probation condition cannot be the basis for revocation if the defendant was not informed of that condition.
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“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.”
Establishes the legal standard for probation revocation that the state must meet
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1983, Hightower pleaded guilty to drug possession and was sentenced to five years probation in July 1984 with a condition to serve 364 days in jail…
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 Notice Of Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PARKER, Judge.
Appellant Hightower challenges the trial court’s revocation of his probation for failure to comply with a condition of that probation. We reverse.
On April 21, 1983, Hightower pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. He was sentenced to five years probation on July 9, 1984, with a special condition that he serve 364 days in the Lee County jail. Hightower completed the 364-day jail sentence by serving time in the Lee County and Polk County jails, and the Polk Correc tional Institute. Hightower was then transferred to the state of Georgia to serve for a period extending from March 15 through December 4, 1985, on a parole violation in that state. The July 9, 1984, order placing Hightower on probation listed the conditions of his probation. Under condition nine, Hightower was required to report immediately to the Department 6f Corrections’ office in Fort Myers upon Ins' release from prison on the 364-day sentence. Condition one, also contained in that order, commanded Hightower to file monthly reports with the probation officer. On August 1, 1986, Hightower was charged by affidavit with failure to make monthly reports for the months of December 1985 through July 1986, resulting in a probation violation.
At Hightower’s hearing on that violation charge, no evidence was presented that Hightower received a copy of the probation order or that the conditions of the probation had been explained to him at the time that he was placed on probation. Rather, the only evidence is to the contrary. High-tower’s signature does not appear in the space furnished on the bottom of the probation order for the probationer to acknowledge that he received a certified copy of the order and was informed of the conditions imposed in the order. Nor does the record provided to this court reflect that the sentencing judge who initially placed Hightower on probation instructed him at that time that he was required to report monthly to a probation officer following his release from jail as a condition of his probation. The following testimony was offered at Hightower’s violation of probation hearing:
JUDGE: Do your records indicate whether the defendant was ever instructed on his rules and conditions of probation?
PROBATION OFFICER: I don’t have a certified copy of orders with a signature on it, but he definitely was instructed to report to probation when he was in court.
However, there is no evidence in the record demonstrating that the probation officer who testified at that hearing was the same officer who was present in court at the time that Hightower’s probation was originally imposed. There is also no explanation offered by the testifying officer that would establish her basis for making such a statement, i.e., that Hightower was told to report 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 point is supported by the absence of Hightower’s signature on the probation order that would signify that he was apprised of the conditions of his probation. The greater weight of the evidence presented at Hightower’s violation of probation hearing, therefore, does not support a finding of a willful and substantial violation. Molina.
We, therefore, vacate the order revoking Hightower’s probation and the judgment and sentence entered upon the revocation of probation.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (38 total)
-
State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)…rtz and Strunk. We hold that failure to file a single monthly report may, in certain circumstances, justify probation revocation if such failure is willful and substantial and supported by the greater weight of the evidence. See High-tower v. State, 529 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).1 In the instant case, the district court improperly applied a per se rule when it relied on Moore and Sanders in reaching its conclusion that the failure to file a single monthly report as a matter of law is not a substantial vi…1 / 2
-
VAN Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…. State, 643 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). On this record, however, we conclude the trial court did abuse its discretion because the record does not support a finding that any violation was willful and substantial. Harris; Hightower v. State, 529 So. 2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The evidence does not establish appellant’s willful noncompliance with Ms. Glesenkamp’s instructions. Through Ms. Johnson, he made repeated, although unsuccessful, attempts to establish communication with Mr. Roberts prior…
-
Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…(citing Davidson v. State, 419 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)); Hanania 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 actuali…
Previewing 3 of 38 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Drayton v. State, 490 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Piper v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Molina v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)