FRANK W. RAINER, 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.
Frank Rainer's probation was revoked for failing to complete a court-ordered drug rehabilitation program. The appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence of willful and substantial violation because Rainer's medical condition (Crohn's disease) caused his discharge from the program, not disciplinary misconduct.
The court held that Rainer's failure to complete the rehabilitation program was not willful and substantial because the record showed he suffered from a medical illness that caused his problems at the drug farm, with no evidence to the contrary. Therefore, revocation of probation was improper.
[1] A probation revocation requires proof of a willful and substantial violation.
[2] Failure to complete a drug rehabilitation program as a condition of probation must be shown to be the probationer's fault to warrant revocation.
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“Any violation triggering a revocation of probation must be "willful" and "substantial"”
Establishes the legal standard required for probation revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRainer pleaded guilty to burglary and resisting arrest and was sentenced to ten years of probation with a condition to complete a drug rehabilitation …
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 Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
We reverse an order revoking appellant’s probation because the evidence was insufficient to show a willful and substantial failure to complete a drug rehabilitation program.
After pleading guilty to charges of burglary and resisting arrest, appellant was sentenced to ten years of probation with the special condition that he complete a drug rehabilitation program at the sheriffs drug farm. Appellant began his rehabilitation as required, but after five months of attendance he was discharged from the treatment facility and transferred to the county stockade. Thereafter, the probation office filed an affidavit of violation and a hearing was held, at which the state argued that appellant failed to complete the drug farm program due to disciplinary problems. The trial court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to ten years in the Department of Corrections.
At the revocation hearing, appellant testified that he suffered from Crohn’s disease, a serious intestinal ailment, and contended that he was not to blame for his discharge from the drug farm, since his illness interfered with his ability to follow instructions. His illness was corroborated by other evidence, and was not in dispute. There was no evidence to contradict appellant’s evidence that it was his disease which caused his disciplinary problems. Appellant also testified that the program was a positive influence on him and that he was willing to complete the program if he could receive medical treatment for his illness.
Any violation triggering a revocation of probation must be “willful” and “substantial,” Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), and like our sister districts, we have previously held that a revocation based on the failure to complete a rehabilitation program must be shown to be the probationer’s fault. See Curry v. State, 379 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Molina v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Gibbs v. State, 609 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Because the record shows that appellant suffers from a medical illness which caused his problems at the drug farm, and there is no evidence to the contrary, appellant’s failure to complete treatment was not willful and substantial. Gibbs. We therefore reverse the order of revocation and remand this case to the trial court with directions to reinstate appellant’s probation.
GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
VAN Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…perform community service had reported “to the community service worksite many times”). “Any violation triggering a revocation of probation must be ‘willful’ and ‘substantial,’ Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).” Rainer v. State, 657 So. 2d 1230, 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (failure to complete drug rehabilitation program not shown to be willful); Bell v. State, 643 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Kolovrat v. State, 574 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (unemployed probationer’s failure to make r…
-
Williams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…he failure to submit to urine screens is also a valid basis for revocation. See Williams v. State, 563 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). However, illness can render technical violations of probation not “substantial and willful.” See Rainer v. State, 657 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Either a mental or a physical illness can be debilitating to the point that a probationer cannot comply with the terms of his probation. In his defense, Williams called Dr. Arturo G. Gonzalez, a psychiatrist, who testified that…
-
Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…liams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (probationer suffering from severe depression did not have the will to make decisions and, thus, did not willfully fail to [*433] comply with reporting conditions of probation); Rainer v. State, 657 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (probationer’s failure to complete rehabilitation program due to disciplinary problems resulting from Crohns disease did not constitute willful and substantial violation). Thus, evidence that Appellant failed to attend two classe…
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
- Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Piper v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Molina v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Gibbs v. State, 609 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Curry v. State, 379 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Robbins v. Blackstone Valley Nat'l Bank, 379 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)