MALCOLM BAKER, 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.
The court held that a geographic probation condition was sufficiently specific and valid, but conditions relating to alcohol were not reasonably related to the offense and should be stricken.
[1] A probation condition prohibiting a defendant from living in a specific geographic area is valid if it is sufficiently clear and informs a person of reasonable intelligen…
[2] A probation condition is not unconstitutionally vague when it describes a specific geographic area, as opposed to a subjective determination by a probation officer.
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 intelligenceMalcolm Baker was convicted of burglary and given probation with several conditions. He appealed two conditions: a geographic restriction and alcohol-…
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
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
We have for review two issues raised by Malcolm Baker concerning several conditions of his probation. We affirm special condition number 23, which prohibits Baker from living in a particular area of Tampa, but strike the conditions which relate to alcohol.
Baker was charged with burglary of a dwelling with assault or battery. Upon adjudicating Baker guilty of the charged offense, the trial court imposed a special condition of probation prohibiting Baker from living north of Fowler, Nebraska to 30th street. Baker claims that this condition is invalid because it is too vague and does not advise him of the limits of his restrictions similar to the condition in Huff v. State, 554 So. 2d 616 (Fla.2d DCA 1989). In Huff, we found that the probation condition which prohibited the defendant from being within three blocks of a “high drug area” as determined by the probation officer was too vague. Huff is not applicable to the instant case. In this case, the condition is much more detailed and specific and sets forth particularly the area where Baker is prohibited from living. The condition in Huff refers to any “high drug area” as determined by the probation officer. The condition in Huff and the condition at issue here are not similar. The condition in this case is sufficiently clear, not too vague and informs a person of reasonable intelligence what conduct is prohibited. Accordingly, we hold that special condition number 23 is valid.
Baker next contends that condition numbers 6, 10 and that.portion of condition number 15, which relate to the consumption of or presence around alcohol are invalid as they are not reasonably related to the offense charged. We agree. See Daniels v. State, 583 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
Accordingly, we strike conditions 6, 10 and that portion of 15 relating to alcohol. We otherwise affirm the conditions of Baker’s probation.
SCHOONOVER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gregory v. State, 616 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)….” Williams, 556 So. 2d at 481-82. None of these problems resurfaces in the present case, in which the wording of the condition is far more definite, sufficient to inform persons of reasonable intelligence what conduct is prohibited. Baker v. State, 609 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Of course, “a violation of this condition would have to be proven willful before appellant’s probation could be revoked on that basis.” Williams, 556 So. 2d at 482. The law does require, however, that special conditions must be…
-
Lambert v. State, 635 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…We affirm appellant’s convictions, but reverse two conditions of probation. We reverse the condition that appellant use no alcohol because this condition is not reasonably related to the offenses or defendant’s rehabilitation. See Baker v. State, 609 So. 2d 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Daniels v. State, [*94] 583 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). We reverse the condition that defendant have no contact with children under age 10 because this condition is too broad. It must be more specific so that the defendant can…
Authorities Cited
- Edmunds v. State, 559 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Huff v. State, 554 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Daniels v. State, 583 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)