THOMAS JEFFREY HUFF, 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 Huff appeals two probation conditions imposed after his probation revocation for burglary. The court strikes conditions prohibiting cohabitation with unrelated women and prohibiting presence within three blocks of a high drug area as invalid, vague, and unrelated to his crime.
Both conditions are invalid and stricken. The cohabitation condition is invalid because it regulates noncriminal conduct. The high drug area condition is impermissibly vague as Huff cannot know precisely which areas to avoid, and neither condition has a reasonable relationship to preventing future burglary.
[1] Conditions of probation that are not announced at the sentencing hearing are invalid.
[2] A condition of probation prohibiting a defendant from living with a member of the opposite sex who is not a relative is invalid because it relates to noncriminal conduct.
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“The condition that Appellant not live with a member of the opposite sex has been held to be invalid because it relates to noncriminal conduct.”
Establishes the controlling legal rule invalidating the cohabitation condition based on precedent.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHuff was sentenced to five years probation for burglary in August 1988. A condition prohibited living with unrelated opposite-sex members. In November…
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
[*617] THREADGILL, Judge.
Appellant, Thomas Jeffrey Huff, challenges two conditions of probation and a finding of violation of his previous probation based on one of these conditions. We strike the illegal conditions and the finding of violation of one of these conditions.
On August 15, 1988, Appellant was sentenced to five years probation for burglary of a dwelling. One of the conditions of probation imposed was that he could not live with a member of the opposite sex who was not his relative. On November 30, 1988, Appellant pleaded guilty to violating five conditions of probation including living with a member of the opposite sex who was a not relative. The trial court revoked his probation and sentenced him to nine years in prison followed by six years probation. The trial court reimposed the condition of probation that Appellant not live with a member of the opposite sex who was not his relative. Another condition imposed was that he not be within three blocks of a known “high drug area” as determined by his probation officer. Neither of these conditions was announced at the sentencing hearing.
The condition that Appellant not live with a member of the opposite sex has been held to be invalid because it relates to noncriminal conduct. See Brodus v. State, 449 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Wilkinson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
We find that the condition that Appellant not be within three blocks of a “high drug area” as defined by his probation officer is too vague to advise Appellant of the limits of his restrictions and can be easily violated unintentionally. The validity of this condition may depend on whether or not the probation officer apprised Appellant of which areas he was to avoid prior to a violation. Since the conditions were not announced at sentencing, there is nothing in the record to suggest that these areas were defined specifically or in writing. See Almond v. State, 350 So. 2d 810, 811 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (striking as too vague a condition of probation prohibiting defendant from residing in “central Florida”).
Further, it has not been shown that either of these conditions has any relationship to the crime of burglary or is reasonably tailored to prevent future criminal conduct by the appellant. Therefore, pursuant to Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (requiring conditions of probation to be reasonably related to prevention of similar criminal acts), we strike the conditions of probation. We also strike the finding of violation based upon his cohabitation with a woman. In all other respects the judgment and sentence are affirmed.
LEHAN, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Gregory v. State, 616 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…at the sentencing hearing, thus depriving Gregory of the opportunity to raise any objection he might have had. Regarding the claim of vagueness, Gregory relies principally upon Alvarez v. State, 593 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992), and Huff v. State, 554 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). One of the conditions stricken in Alvarez involved “consumption of alcohol.” Citing Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), the court found this condition was unrelated to the offense for which Alvarez was convicted.…
-
Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…te, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Furthermore, it delegates impermissible authority to a probation officer. See Denson v. State, 493 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Condition twenty-one has previously been stricken by this court. See Huff v. State, 554 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Accordingly, we strike the imposition of court costs and special conditions of probation eleven and twenty-one. Otherwise, we affirm. SCHEB, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.…
-
Johnson v. State, 561 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)…CA 1990), by imposing a public defender fee without notice and an opportunity to be heard, Farmer v. State, 535 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), by requiring the appellant to remain at least three blocks away from known high drug areas, Huff v. State, 554 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), and by not having the written order placing the appellant on probation recite that probation would be terminated upon payment of restitution, see Clarke v. State, 453 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Upon remand, after reinstating…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 378 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Almond v. State, 350 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Carlton Everett Wilkinson, Jr. v. State, 388 So. 2d 1322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Brodus v. State, 449 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)