MIGUEL DIAZ, 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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the revocation of a probationer's sentence where the trial court revoked probation based on the appellant's refusal to admit to specific conduct during counseling sessions, despite no explicit probation condition requiring such admission and the appellant's full compliance with all stated probation terms.
The court held that appellant was not proven to have violated the terms of his probation because no specific condition of probation was imposed requiring him to admit to a counselor the specific acts charged, and he had complied with all terms actually imposed, including participation in psychological counseling.
[1] A defendant's probation may not be revoked for failing to admit specific criminal conduct to a counselor when no condition of probation explicitly requires such an admiss…
[2] A defendant's guilty plea entered solely on the basis of "best interest" and the possibility of conviction does not obligate the defendant to admit specific criminal cond…
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“Under these circumstances we do not believe appellant has been proven to have violated the terms of his probation.”
Establishes the court's holding that without an explicit probation condition requiring admission of guilt to specific conduct, the probationer cannot be found in violation for refusing to make such admission.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement and was placed on two years of probation. One probation condition required he receive a p…
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 Plea Agreement Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the revocation of appellant’s probation and remand with directions that probation be reinstated.
Pursuant to a plea agreement appellant entered a guilty plea and was placed on two years probation. One condition of probation was that appellant receive a psychological evaluation and “any treatment or counseling deemed necessary.” Subsequently, the state sought to revoke appellant’s probation because he would not admit to a counselor that he had committed the specific conduct underlying the criminal charges.1 Upon hearing, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of incarceration.
When appellant’s guilty plea was entered and accepted, he was not asked to admit the unlawful act charged. Rather, he was asked if he was entering the plea “in his best interest.” He did admit that if there was a trial “it is possible [he] could be convicted.” After being placed on probation, appellant was evaluated and attended all counseling sessions required. No specific condition of probation was imposed requiring him to admit to a counselor the specific acts charged. Under these circumstances we do not believe appellant has been proven to have violated the terms of his probation. Yancey v. State, 547 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see also and compare Haynes v. State, 571 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), with Archer v. State, 604 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Appellant has apparently done everything that the terms of the probation order require, including participating in psychological counseling. If it is a trial court’s determination that an admission of guilt to specific conduct to a counselor is necessary, then the defendant should be so advised before a plea agreement is approved. Here, the appellant did not admit his guilt to the specific conduct in plea negotiations or at any court hearing, and no term of probation requiring him to do so was imposed.
ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur. . At the subsequent revocation hearing the counselor testified that it was important to the success of the counseling that the appellant admit the specific misconduct.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. State, 643 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…ion of Bell’s probation conditions, and Bell cannot now be penalized for failing to abide by them. As such, we reverse Bell’s probation revocation and remand to the trial court with directions that Bell’s probation be reinstated.1 See Diaz v. State, 629 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (court likewise reversing probation revocation and remanding with directions to reinstate probation under strikingly similar circumstances). BOOTH, MICKLE and BENTON, JJ., concur. . We emphasize that this holding does not confl…
-
Staples v. State, 202 So. 3d 28 (Fla. 2016)…ground that it expressly and directly conflicts with decisions' of the First, Second, and Fourth District Courts of Appeal in Bennett v. State, 684 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), Bell v. State, 643 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), and Diaz v. State, 629 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve the Fifth District’s holding in the instant case and disapprove the conflict cases to the extent that they ar…1 / 2
-
Bennett v. State, 684 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
Authorities Cited
- Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Archer v. State, 604 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Haynes v. State, 571 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Yancey v. State, 547 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)