DWAYNE FRAZIER WHITE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court affirmed the revocation of a defendant's community control for leaving his residence without prior approval to visit his parents next door. The court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court, despite the defendant's otherwise spotless record.
No, the trial court did not err in revoking community control. The court found that the defendant's actions supported a conclusion that he knew he was in violation of his community control, and the trial court has broad discretion in such matters.
[1] A trial court possesses broad discretion in determining whether a probationer has violated a condition of community control, and such determinations are reviewed for abus…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“[R]emaining in one’s residence during the specified times is indeed a vital component of a community control program.”
This quote establishes the importance of adhering to residence restrictions in community control programs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDwayne Frazier White, while on community control for drug offenses, left his residence to visit his parents next door on Thanksgiving morning without …
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
MAKAR, J.
Dwayne Frazier White appeals the revocation of his community control, which arose from his absence from his residence on Thanksgiving morning to visit his parents who lived next door. He had been placed on two years’ community control for selling a controlled substance within 1,000 feet of a nursing home and illegally using a two-way communication device; he was a law enforcement officer at the time and made the sale out of his patrol car. At the time of his visit with his parents, White had served fifteen months of two years of community control without any violations; he maintained a job, a residence, and a time log without incident. The problem is that White was required to get prior
approval to leave his residence and, importantly, for only specific authorized activities, such as going to work or the doctor. The house arrest officer, who discovered that White was not home on Thanksgiving morning, testified that White could not under any circumstances leave his residence and visit his parents’ home, even though it was next door and even though it was Thanksgiving. See, e.g., State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982, 986 (Fla. 2001) (“[R]emaining in one’s residence during the specified times is indeed a vital component of a community control program.”). White was entitled to have his parents come to his home for a holiday meal or gathering, but not vice versa.
White argues that the trial court erred because White acted negligently rather than intentionally in visiting his parents’ home. He points to “undisputed evidence that [he] answered [the house arrest officer’s] call and immediately ran back to his house” thereby “show[ing] his lack of intent to violate his community control.” Running back home after receiving the call, however, can easily be seen as supporting the opposite conclusion: that White knew he was in violation of community control and hightailed it back home when he was called out.
White was sentenced to two years of incarceration for his violation of community control requirements, i.e., visiting his parents next door on Thanksgiving Day. This could be seen as harsh punishment, particularly when White had a spotless record to that point, fifteen months into his two years of community control. The counterpoint is that White committed a serious drug offense while he was a law enforcement officer and in a patrol car (near a nursing home) and was given leniency with community control. Trial judges have broad discretion in these matters, Williamson v. State, 43 So. 3d 843, 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“The trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine whether a probationer has violated a condition of probation.”); no abuse of discretion has been shown.
AFFIRMED.
ROBERTS, J., concurs; TANENBAUM, J., concurs in result only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)
- Monterrance Williamson v. State, 43 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)