ROBERT P. OLIVER, 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.
Robert Oliver challenged five probation conditions imposed by the trial court following his incarceration. The Fourth District Court of Appeal partially affirmed and partially reversed, striking down several conditions as unconstitutionally vague or lacking sufficient nexus to his offense and rehabilitation.
The court struck special condition 15 prohibiting contact with minor children as unconstitutionally vague, requiring more specific language. The court also struck the conditions prohibiting alcohol consumption, entering alcohol establishments, and the substance abuse evaluation requirement as lacking a reasonable relation to Oliver's offense or rehabilitation. The court found the alcohol establishment restriction violated notice requirements as it was not orally pronounced and not on the standard probation form. The general condition not to use intoxicants to excess was affirmed as it appears on the standard form.
[1] A probation condition prohibiting contact with minor children must be sufficiently specific to avoid unintentional violations.
[2] Probation conditions are invalid if they lack a reasonable relation to the offense or the defendant's rehabilitation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 strike that language in special condition 15 which explicitly prohibits appellant's contact with minor children. The language of the condition must be more specific, so that appellant may not be charged with unintentional violation of it.”
Establishes the vagueness requirement for probation conditions and the principle that conditions must be specific enough to provide clear notice to the probationer.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Oliver was sentenced to incarceration followed by probation with five general and special conditions imposed by the trial court. The conditions…
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 Notice Of Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Chief Judge.
This appeal is directed at five general and special conditions imposed by the trial court on appellant for the period of probation which is to follow appellant’s incarceration.
We strike that language in special condition 15 which explicitly prohibits appellant’s contact with minor children. The language of the condition must be more specific, so that appellant may not be charged with unintentional violation of it. Lambert v. State, 635 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Lambert v. State, 635 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); cf. Dean v. State, 629 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
We strike also the conditions imposed on appellant that he consume no alcoholic beverages, enter no establishment whose primary business is sale of alcoholic beverages, obtain a substance abuse evaluation, and follow any recommendation that ensues from that evaluation. The conduct which some of these ban is not criminal in itself; and there is no reasonable relation between any of the conditions in this group and appellant’s offense or subsequent rehabilitation. Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla.1993).
Imposition of the special condition prohibiting appellant from entering any establishment whose primary business is sale of alcoholic beverages was erroneous for the further reason that there was not adequate notice that this condition would be imposed. This condition, which was not orally pronounced, is not found among the general conditions promulgated by the Supreme Court in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.986. See State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla.1996). The Florida Supreme Court has held that that form furnishes to all who face probation constructive notice of the general conditions printed therein. Id. The same is not true of special conditions. Id.
We find that the trial court committed no notice error in imposing the general condition not to use intoxicants to excess, as this condition does appear on the printed probation form promulgated by the Supreme Court. Hart. We are aware that in the instant case the trial court did not use the probation form promulgated in the rule.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
WARNER and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…t is on probation for child abuse.” A number of courts, on direct appeal from an order of probation, have found similar conditions impermissibly broad because they subject defendants to the possibility of an unintentional violation. Oliver v. State, 672 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (condition that explicitly prohibited a defendant from having “contact with minor children” was impermissibly broad); Lambert v. State, 635 So. 2d 93, 93-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (condition which provided the defendant “have no con…
-
Swatzell v. State, 691 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…anyone under 18 years of age unless supervised by someone over the age of 25. This condition is impermissibly broad because the possibility of unintentional violation exists. See Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Oliver v. State, 672 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We, therefore, strike the condition and remand the ease to the trial court to rephrase the condition in a manner that minimizes the potential for inadvertent violations. Rev…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hart, 668 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 1996)
- Biller v. State, 618 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 1993)
- Dean v. State, 629 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Cartwright v. State, 635 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Lambert v. State, 635 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)