RICCI M. SALZANO, 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.
Ricci Salzano appealed the revocation of his community control sentence for two felony petit theft convictions. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking community control where Salzano demonstrated willingness to complete drug treatment and the community control order lacked specificity regarding program completion timelines.
The court reversed the revocation, holding that the trial court abused its discretion because Salzano demonstrated willingness to complete counseling, the community control order did not specify the timeframe for program completion or the number of attempts permitted, and the evidence did not establish a willful and substantial violation.
[1] A violation of community control must be willful and substantial to warrant revocation.
[2] The greater weight of the evidence must support the willful and substantial nature of a community control violation.
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“A violation of probation which triggers revocation must be both willful and substantial, and the willful and substantial nature of the violation must be supported by the greater weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for probation/community control violation revocations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSalzano pleaded guilty to two felony petit theft charges and was ordered to serve two concurrent years of community control with a condition to comple…
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 Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, Ricci M. Salzano, challenges the revocation of his community control. We reverse.
The appellant pled guilty to two felony petit theft charges in violation of section 812.014, Florida Statutes (1993). The trial court adjudicated the appellant guilty and ordered him to serve two years community control, each case concurrent. The affidavit of violation of community control which was subsequently filed alleged that the appellant violated condition (22) which stated: “You will be screened for drug treatment and complete any counseling or treatment as recommended or required.” The affidavit alleged that the appellant was screened and found acceptable for the residential program at Operation PAR, was admitted effective May 2, 1994, and was unsuccessfully terminated for failure to comply and inappropriate behavior effective May 4, 1994. After a hearing, the trial court ruled that the appellant violated the alleged condition and as a result, adjudicated him guilty of two counts of felony petit theft and ordered him to serve two concurrent terms of two years community control. This timely appeal followed.
The appellant contends that he did not willfully and substantially violate his community control. We agree.
A violation of probation which triggers revocation must be both willful and substantial, and the willful and substantial nature of the violation must be supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
At the revocation of community control hearing in the instant case, the director for the assessment and admissions department at Operation PAR testified that the appellant appeared highly motivated to enter the treatment program at PAR. She testified that after two days in the program the appellant was terminated because of allegations that he had made sexual comments to a resident and because he was found in the detox area on four occasions against the rules of the facility. However, the appellant denied making the alleged comments to the resident and testified that he went to the detox area of the facility in order to get medication as he was told to do. The appellant testified that after he left the PAR program he immediately contacted his probation officer and enrolled in another detox facility because he believed he was still in need of treatment.
The appellant’s probation officer testified that the appellant originally expressed repeatedly that he needed treatment. She testified that she did not explain to the appellant that a condition of his community control was to complete the PAR program and that at the time the affidavit of violation of probation was filed, he was residing at another residential treatment program.
We believe that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the appellant’s community control since the appellant expressed a willingness to complete some form of counseling. Furthermore, the order of community control did not specify the period within which the appellant was to complete the program and how many chances he would be given to obtain success. See Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, the sentence imposed as a result of the revocation of community control is reversed and the cause is remanded with instructions to reinstate the appellant’s original community control sentence on the petit theft charges.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
THREADGILL, C.J., and SCHOONOVER and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
VAN Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ct demonstrating appellant’s unfitness for probation. To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation. Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Thorpe v. State, 642 So. 2d 629, 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (‘Where a probationer has made reasonable efforts to comply with the terms of probation, his or her failure to do so has been held not to be willful.”). See also Washington…
-
Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2007)…peal in Lawson v. State, 941 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). In its decision, the district court certified conflict with Singleton v. State, 891 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), Davis v. State, 862 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), and Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and certified the following question as one of great public importance: DOES A TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING A DEFENDANT, WHO IS DISCHARGED FROM A COURT-ORDERED DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR NONATTENDANCE, IN WILLFUL…
-
Dwaine Woodson v. State, 864 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…. 2d DCA 2000); Jones v. State, 744 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Gamble v. State, 737 So. 2d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Mitchell v. State, 717 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Edgerton v. State, 703 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Melecio v. State, 662 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Gibbs v. State, 609 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). . Palma; Jones; Edgerton; Salzano; Gibbs. . Gamble; Melecio. . Palma. . Section 948.001(7), Florida Statutes (2000), pro…
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)