JOHN TIMOTHY HARRIS, 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.
John Timothy Harris appealed the revocation of his community control following a guilty plea to cocaine delivery. The court reversed the revocation, finding that the alleged violations were not willful and substantial as required by law, and remanded for reinstatement of community control.
The court held that Harris's violations were not willful and substantial. The evidence did not support the trial court's determination that his actions constituted deliberate misconduct, and he made a reasonable attempt to comply with community control conditions. The revocation was therefore improper.
[1] A violation triggering revocation of community control must be willful and substantial.
[2] Miscommunication or confusion, rather than deliberate misconduct, may negate a finding that a violation of community control was willful and substantial.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A violation which triggers a revocation of probation must be willful and substantial.”
Establishes the legal standard required for revoking community control
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris pled guilty to delivery of cocaine and was sentenced to community control for two years with one year in county jail as a habitual offender. Af…
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 Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
THREADGILL, Acting Chief Judge.
John Timothy Harris appeals an order revoking his community control contending that the violations were not willful or substantial. We reverse.
The appellant pled guilty to delivery of cocaine.1 At sentencing, he was classified as a habitual offender and placed on community control for two years with a condition of one year in the county jail.
After his release from jail, he was charged with two failure to report violations. The first violation occurred the day of his release when he did not immediately report to his community control officer as instructed. He was released on a Friday and did not report until the following Monday because, according to his testimony, his community control officer told him to report the following Monday if he were released after 1:00 p.m. on a Friday. The community control officer did not deny this, but testified it would have been standard procedure for the appellant to report on Friday if he were released at 1:00 p.m.
As to the second violation, the evidence showed that when the appellant telephoned the community control office at a later date to discuss his transfer to Orlando, he was told to make an appointment, which he did not do. The appellant contends that he had decided not to pursue the transfer because he had no place to live in Orlando and knew the request would be denied.
After revoking the appellant’s community control, the trial court sentenced him to thirty years in prison as a habitual offender. The guidelines recommendation was five and a half to twelve years in prison.
A violation which triggers a revocation of probation must be willful and substantial. Hightower v. State, 529 So. 2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Although a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a term of probation has been violated, the greater weight of the evidence in this case does not support the court’s determination that the appellant’s actions were willful and substantial. See id.
The appellant made a reasonable attempt to comply with the conditions of community control. His failure to report and to make an appointment was more the result of miscommunication or confusion than a deliberate act of misconduct.
We therefore reverse the order of revocation and remand for the reinstatement of the appellant’s community control.
Reversed and remanded.
PARKER and BLUE, JJ., concur. . § 893.13(l)(a)l., Fla.Stat. (Supp.1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)…whether there has been a willful and substantial violation of a term of probation and whether such a violation has been demonstrated by the greater weight of the evidence. See Van Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Harris v. State, 610 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court in this case weighed the evidence and determined that Carter’s conduct warranted revocation. On appeal from the trial court’s decision on the issue, the standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Bell v. Stat…
-
VAN Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (no willful violation of condition that probationer leave Florida proven because his car broke down). A “trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a term of probation has been violated.... ” Harris v. State, 610 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). “The standard of review for probation revocation orders is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992.)” Bell v. State, 643 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). O…
-
Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…reflects that appellant was found guilty of violating Conditions I, II, III, IV, and V of his probation. A trial court is vested with broad discretion in determining whether a probationer has violated a condition of the probation. Harris v. State, 610 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA1992). A violation which triggers a revocation of probation must be “willful and substantial.” Hewett v. State, 613 So. 2d 1306 (Fla.1993); Gibbs v. State, 609 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); McCullough v. State, 616 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 2d DC…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hightower v. State, 529 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)