IRA 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.
Thomas appealed the revocation of his probation and sentencing to four years incarceration for violating a condition requiring him to write an apology letter to a law enforcement officer. The court affirmed the revocation and sentence but remanded for technical correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncements limiting the violation finding to only the letter condition.
The court affirmed that Thomas's failure to write the letter for one and one-half years constituted a willful violation of probation, and that the trial court properly imposed a sentence outside the guidelines based on repeated violations of probation conditions.
[1] A trial court may find a willful violation of probation for failure to complete a required letter of apology when the probationer delays completion for an extended period…
[2] A trial court's reliance on repeated violations of probation can serve as a valid reason for departing from recommended sentencing guidelines.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We find nevertheless that the court could properly conclude that appellant's failure to write the letter for a period of one and one-half years after imposition of the special condition would be construed as a willful violation of the terms of probation.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for finding a willful violation based on delay, even without explicit instructions or deadlines.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas pleaded nolo contendere to charges of carrying a concealed firearm, possession of cannabis, and possession of cocaine in November 1986, and was…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of an order revoking his probation and sentencing him outside the recommended guidelines range to four years incarceration. He contends the trial court erred in finding that he willfully violated a condition of probation requiring him to write a letter of apology to a law enforcement officer, and in sentencing him outside the recommended guidelines range of community control or 12 to 30 months incarceration. We affirm, but remand the case for correction of the order of violation of probation so as to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncements, referencing only a violation of the letter condition.
The trial court initially imposed the condition of probation requiring appellant to write a letter of apology on November 17, 1986, following entry of appellant’s plea of nolo contendere to charges of carrying a concealed firearm, possession of cannabis and possession of cocaine, and placing appellant on probation for three years, to run concurrently on each count.
The trial court revoked the probation on April 20, 1987 following appellant’s admissions to violations of the probation including the letter condition, and sentenced appellant to 30 months incarceration followed by one year probation upon the same original conditions.
This court affirmed the conviction and sentence. Thomas v. State, 522 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Appellant began serving the one-year term of probation on December 23, 1987, and the state on June 1, 1988 filed an affidavit of violation of probation, alleging as grounds appellant’s failure to write the letter of apology, his arrest for assault, and failure to perform 60 hours of community service, all conditions imposed in the November 17, 1986 order. Appellant wrote the letter of apology on May 26, 1988, two days after his arrest for assault.
At the hearing on the violation of probation, the court found a violation only with respect to the letter, although the state did not present the probation officer to testify as to his instructions to appellant regarding the letter, and no date by which the letter was to be written was included in the 1986 or 1987 order.
We find nevertheless that the court could properly conclude that appellant’s failure to write the letter for a period of one and one-half years after imposition of the special condition would be construed as a willful violation of the terms of probation. Scott v. State, 485 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
We affirm the sentence, finding the court’s reliance upon appellant’s repeated violations of probation a valid reason for departure from the recommended guidelines sentence. See Booker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.1987).
The case is remanded for conformance of the order of violation of probation to the trial court’s oral pronouncements.
ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jordan v. State, 610 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…second issue relating to the payment of costs, we note that the state is required to show that a violation of a probation order was willful in order to warrant revocation. Yancey v. State, 547 So. 2d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Thomas v. State, 542 So. 2d 475, 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Here, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Jordan willfully refused to pay the monthly costs of supervision in view of the probation officer’s testimony that he was not certain whether he had informed appellant t…
-
Yancey v. State, 547 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…participate until satisfactorily discharged in any treatment programs developed for him. The facts contained in the record on appeal do not support a finding that Yancey willfully failed to comply with Condition 9 of his probation. Thomas v. State, 542 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Scott v. State, 485 So. 2d 40 (Fla.2d DCA 1986). To the contrary, the facts indicate that the mental health center failed to properly evaluate Yancey and to develop a program suitable to his needs, notwithstanding Yancey’s expre…
-
Catala v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 691 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…ls and the tapes were lost. We accept that explanation. Further, we agree that a lost [*518] or destroyed record when a party is entitled to an appeal, if the record can not be adequately reproduced, mandates a new trial. See Coyle v. Western Union, 542 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). In this case, the Commission determined that the record could not be adequately reconstructed and we affirm that determination. We were concerned, however, by the allegation made in Catala’s brief and at oral argument that: Wh…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dilar S. Booker v. State, 514 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1987)
- Scott v. State, 485 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)