KENNY ALSTON, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 Supreme Court held that while cocaine constitutes an intoxicant for purposes of probation violations, a single positive drug test does not establish a violation of a community control condition prohibiting excessive use of intoxicants. However, cocaine use does violate a separate condition requiring compliance with the law.
Cocaine is an intoxicant for purposes of community control conditions, but a single positive drug test alone is insufficient evidence to establish a violation of the excessive-use condition. However, cocaine use does violate the separate condition requiring the person to live without violating the law.
[1] Cocaine constitutes an intoxicant for purposes of a community control condition prohibiting the excessive use of intoxicants.
[2] A single positive drug test, without further evidence, is insufficient to establish a violation of a community control condition prohibiting the excessive use of intoxica…
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“We agree with the district court's conclusion that cocaine is an intoxicant for purposes of the excessive-use condition.”
Establishes that cocaine qualifies as an intoxicant under community control conditions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSeveral weeks after receiving a community control sentence, Alston was observed by a community control officer standing on a street corner on a day 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 Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
WELLS, Justice.
We have for review Alston v. State, 623 So. 2d 1226 (Fla.3d DCA 1993), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Jones v. State, 348 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We have jurisdiction. Ait. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. Several weeks after Alston received a community control sentence, a community control officer observed him standing on a street corner on a day that his log sheet indicated he should have been working. The officer required Alston to report to the probation office, where he was subjected to a drug test. Alston tested positive for cocaine use and, subsequently, was charged with violating several community control conditions.
The trial court found that Alston violated the community control conditions requiring that he work diligently and that he not use intoxicants to excess. Accordingly, the court revoked his community control and sentenced him to five years in prison. The district court struck the finding that Alston failed to work diligently but held that the positive drug test sufficiently demonstrated that Alston violated the remaining condition. In reaching this conclusion, the court also noted that cocaine constitutes an intoxicant for purposes of probation violation cases.
We agree with the district court’s conclusion that cocaine is an intoxicant for purposes of the excessive-use condition. Alston asserts that the term “intoxicant” as used in the condition only applies to alcohol, but this interpretation ignores the modern trend to categorize both drugs and alcohol as intoxicants. Additionally, Alston’s interpretation fails to account for past decisions that have classified cocaine,1 marijuana,2 and even transmission fluid3 as intoxicants within the meaning of this condition.
Alston, however, correctly asserts that his use of cocaine, as evidenced by a single drug test, did not violate the community control condition requiring him to refrain from using intoxicants to excess. The plain language of the condition indicates that only “excessive” use of an intoxicant is prohibited. We do not believe a single positive drug test, without more, is sufficient evidence to find a violation of this particular community control condition. Rather, this ease requires a result consistent with Jones v. State, 348 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), because the conduct established does not appear to be that which the excessive use condition was intended to proscribe.
We do note, however, that a positive drug test for cocaine violates the community control condition which directs that the person live without violating the law. Consequently, our holding would not preclude the State from initiating a new revocation proceeding with a proper charge prior to the expiration of Alston’s community control sentence.
Accordingly, we quash the district court’s decision to the extent it is inconsistent with this opinion and remand for further proceedings consistent with our views here.
It is so ordered.
GRIMES, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur. . Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (requiring resentencing for community control violation because drug test showing cocaine use did not fall within the business record's hearsay exception and no other direct evidence of cocaine use existed).
. Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (reinstating probation because the trial court did not make an express oral finding that the appellant used cocaine and because the trial court orally found appellant violated probation by smoking marijuana, although the charging affidavit did not allege that appellant smoked marijuana).
.Scott v. State, 524 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (affirming revocation of probation based on defendant's use of intoxicants to excess where police officer observed appellant staggering down street, inhaling automobile transmission fluid).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blackshear v. State, 838 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that appellant willfully and substantially failed to satisfy condition one by failing to submit monthly reports to his probation officer. However, in accordance with the dictates of Alston v. State, 646 So. 2d 184 (Fla.1994), we must reverse as to condition six for a lack of sufficient evidence of excessive intoxicant use or visiting a place that intoxicants are used. See also Blair v. State, 745 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st [*1230] DCA 1999); Legree v. State, 739 So…
-
Blair v. State, 745 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…bused its discretion in finding that he had violated standard condition seven of his community control. Appellant claims that insufficient evidence was presented to prove that particular violation. In accordance with the dictates of Alston v. State, 646 So. 2d 184 (Fla.1994), we must reverse. While we must reverse, we note, as did the supreme court in Alston, that the single admitted instance of unlawful drug use in this case would constitute sufficient evidence that appellant violated standard condition fi…
-
Vernia Smith v. State, 100 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ng intoxicants to excess or possessing any drugs or narcotics, unless prescribed by a physician.” In making this argument, Smith accurately notes that the record reflects that Smith used intoxicants on probation only once. Citing to Alston v. State, 646 So. 2d 184 (Fla.1994), and its progeny,1 Smith argues that a single use of intoxicants does not constitute a violation of probation. We distinguish the Alston line of cases on the basis that the officers in those cases did not witness the probationers in an in…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Burtless v. Pallero, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Magnolia Green v. State, 348 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Scott v. State, 524 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Alston v. State, 623 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)