THOMAS ALBERT VERNON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed conviction for lewd and lascivious assault but struck probation condition requiring support of stepdaughters, finding no legal duty to support non-adopted stepchildren absent contractual obligation.
A probation condition requiring support of stepdaughters is invalid absent a legal duty to support them, which does not exist in Florida for non-adopted stepchildren without a support contract.
[1] A probation condition requiring support of stepchildren is invalid under Florida law absent a legal duty to support them, which does not arise for non-adopted stepchildre…
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 intelligenceAppellant was convicted of lewd and lascivious assault and battery against his stepdaughter and received a probation order that included a condition r…
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
MICKLE, Judge.
Appellant seeks review of his conviction and sentence for the offenses of lewd and lascivious assault and battery perpetrated on his stepdaughter. As appellant’s first point on appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in ruling inadmissible letters written by his stepdaughter to male classmates at school. We find no merit to this contention. The trial court was eminently correct in excluding the letters under Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (1991).
Next, appellant contests that portion of the probation order requiring him to support his two stepdaughters. We agree that this condition of probation was erroneously imposed. Although Section 948.03(l)(f), Florida Statutes (1989), authorizes as a permissible condition of probation that a probationer support his legal dependents, no legal duty exists in Florida to provide support for a minor child who is not natural or adopted, and for whom care and support has not been contracted. Hippen v. Hippen, 491 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). In the instant case, no evidence was presented to establish that appellant was under any legal obligation to support his two stepdaughters. Accordingly, this condition of the probation order is stricken. In all other respects, the judgment, sentence and probation order are AFFIRMED.
SMITH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Barber, 638 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…jurisdiction, or the order departs from the essential requirements of the law thus causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Anderson By and Through Anderson v. Lore, 618 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987).1 The provisions of sections 766.201-.212, Florida Statutes, are not to be allowed to impinge upon plaintiffs’ right of access to the courts and must be construed as…
-
Robert L. Steele, M.D. v. Davis, 667 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…ailed to demonstrate that the order of the trial court denying the motion to dismiss either exceeds the trial court’s jurisdiction or departs from the essential requirements of the law, we deny the petition. Anderson By and Through Anderson v. Lore, 618 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Barber, 638 So. 2d 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). MICKLE, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.…
-
Pruitt v. State, 682 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…the trial court and, more importantly, demonstrates no departure from the essential requirements of law sufficient to grant certiorari review. See Valenzuela v. Valenzuela, 648 So. 2d 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Anderson By and Through Anderson v. Lore, 618 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); American Southern Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); S.Y. v. McMillan, 563 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Flowing logically to this case, where the sentence is legally within the range prescribed by statute…
Authorities Cited
- Hippen v. Hippen, 491 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)