RAFAEL J. ZEPEDA, 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.
A trial court may modify an existing condition of probation during its term, but cannot add new conditions without a finding of violation.
The state moved to change a probationer's counseling condition and add a no-contact-with-victim condition, which the trial court granted without a vio…
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
THOMPSON, Judge.
Rafael J. Zepeda appeals the modification of the terms and conditions of his probationary sentence without a judicial finding that he had violated his probation. We affirm his sentence, but strike one of the added conditions.
Zepeda was placed on probation with the special condition that he seek family counseling. Although there was no violation of probation filed, the state moved to have this condition changed to individual anger management. The state also moved to add the condition that Zepeda have no contact with the victim. The trial court granted both requests...
The modification of an existing condition is valid. Section 948.03(5), Florida Statutes (1993), allows the trial court, during the term of probation, to modify any condition previously imposed by the court. See Woods v. Angel, 556 So. 2d 820, 821 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (during term of probation, trial court may subsequently modify those conditions of probation “theretofore imposed”). The trial court, therefore, did not err in changing the counseling condition from family counseling to individual anger management.
The trial court, however, could not impose additional conditions of probation. In this regard, the state properly concedes that the trial court erred when it required Zepeda to stay away from the victim. This enhancement of Zepeda’s probationary sentence was improper absent a finding of violation of probation. See Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1994); Brenatelli v. State, 555 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we strike this additional condition of probation.
AFFIRMED as modified.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wanner v. State of Fla. & SouthTrust Bank of Fla., N.A., 746 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…trial court did not modify but added entirely new condition); Woods v. Angel, 556 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (trial court has statutory authority to modify during term of probation any condition “theretofore imposed”); see also Zepeda v. State, 658 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (trial court did not err in changing counseling condition from family counseling to individual anger management but did err in adding condition of no contact with victim in absence of violation of probation); Russo v. State, 603…
-
Hicks v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…followed. I agree with the majority that this appeal should be treated as an appeal of a final order entered after final judgment. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.140(b)(1)(D); cf. Walker v. State, 919 So. 2d 501, 502-03 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Zepeda v. State, 658 So. 2d 1201, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Gladfelter v. State, 604 So. 2d 929, 930 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), approved by 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1993). I likewise agree with the majority that in light of the father's passing, the estate is now entitled to the restitutio…
Authorities Cited
- Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1994)
- M.G. v. State, 556 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Smith v. State, 555 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Woods v. Hon. Carven D. Angel, 556 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)