SHARON ANDERSON, 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.
Sharon Anderson appealed an order modifying her probation by extending it one year for alleged violations. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding the trial court's ruling unsupported by evidence because the alleged violation—failing to appear at the "Corner Drug Store" for evaluation—was contradicted by testimony showing the counselor did not work there.
The trial court's finding of a probation violation was unsupported by evidence in the record, and the order extending probation was reversed because no evidence demonstrated appellant was instructed to appear at the "Corner Drug Store" and the counselor testified she did not work there.
[1] A probationer cannot be found to have violated a condition requiring compliance with probation officer instructions when no evidence is presented that such instructions w…
[2] A probation violation based on failure to attend scheduled evaluations is not supported by evidence if the probationer was referred to a counselor at a different facility…
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“At the VOP hearing, however, no evidence was presented that appellant was ever given instructions, by her probation officer or anyone else, to appear at the "Corner Drug Store" for evaluation.”
Establishes the factual foundation for reversal—the alleged specific violation location was not supported by evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnderson was adjudicated guilty of two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer in January 1988 and placed on two years concurrent probation. He…
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
SHIVERS, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Sharon Anderson, appeals an order entered by the trial court modifying her probation. For the reasons set out below, we reverse.
In January of 1988, appellant was adjudicated guilty of two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, and was placed on concurrent terms of two years probation. Her order of probation contained ten standard conditions, including condition 10, stating: “Comply with instructions given by your Probation Officer.” In addition, the order contained three non-standard or special conditions, including condition 15, stating: “Participate in counseling at your own expense as instructed for: mental health.”
In an amended affidavit filed in August 1989, it was alleged that appellant had:
violated the conditions of her probation in a material respect by violating condition 10 which states: ‘Comply with instructions given by your Probation Officer,’ in that, the defendant has failed to keep appointments as scheduled at the Comer Drug Store for evaluations_
(emphasis supplied) After hearing the testimony presented at the hearing, the trial court entered an order modifying probation, finding appellant to have violated probation as alleged in the amended affidavit, and extending probation for an additional period of one year. At the VOP hearing, however, no evidence was presented that appellant was ever given instructions, by her probation officer or anyone else, to appear at the “Corner Drug Store” for evaluation. Rena Fannin, a substance abuse and family therapy counselor, testified at the hearing that appellant was referred to her by the Parole and Probation Commission for therapy, that appellant agreed to participate in individual counseling one time per week, and that appellant missed several appointments between May 1989 and December 1989, resulting in her file being closed due to “inconsistency and poor follow-through.” Fannin, however, specifically testified that she was an Addictions Counselor III with Addictions and Family Health, and that she did not work for the “Corner Drug Store.” We therefore find that the trial court’s ruling that appellant violated probation as alleged in the amended affidavit is unsupported by evidence in the record. We reverse the order extending probation for an additional period of one year. REVERSED.
BOOTH and JÓANOS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Theron Thomas v. State, 672 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…willful act. Similarly, without evidence that defendant was instructed or ordered to report to the program director the next morning, a finding of willfulness is unsupported. See Ware v. State, 575 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Anderson v. State, 579 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Thus, there is no substantial competent evidence to support a finding that defendant’s discharge from Fern House was due to willful conduct on his part. The second violation, changing residence without first procuring his proba…