ROBERT ROWLES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
We affirm Rowles’ conviction and sentence for committing a lewd, lascivious or indecent act on a child1 in all regards, except for the special condition of probation that he have no contact with a female child under the age of sixteen years, unless that child’s parent or legal guardian is present. The wording of this condition may subject Rowles to unintentional violation should he subsequently be inadvertently placed in a work or social situation where young girls are present, without their parents or guardians. See Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Lambert v. State, 635 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We remand this cause to the trial court to revisit and refashion this condition, in order to minimize any inadvertent violation. Perhaps a condition that prohibits intentional, unsupervised contact with a female child under age sixteen, where no adult is present, would suffice.
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED to revise condition of probation.
GOSHORN, J., concurs.
COBB, J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.
. § 800.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).
COBB, Judge,
concurring in part; dissenting in part.
I would simply affirm in all respects based on Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…too broad); Swatzell v. State, 691 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (condition which provided “defendant have no contact with anyone under 18 years of age unless supervised by someone over the age of 25” was impermissibly broad); Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184, 1184-1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (condition which provided the defendant “have no contact with a female child under the age of sixteen years, unless that child’s parent or legal guardian is present” was impermissibly broad).1 Defendant took no appeal…1 / 2
-
Stapler v. State, 190 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…ve previously held that conditions forbidding contact with minors are overly broad because they subject,offenders to possible punishment for innocent or inadvertent conduct. Lamerton v. State, 78 So. 3d 686, 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184, 1184-85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court should modify this condition of probation to prohibit only intentional contact with minors without prior court approval.3 [*166] AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED for resentencing.…
-
Manon v. State, 740 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…ondition that defendant have “no contact with anyone under 18 years of age unless supervised by someone over 25 years of age,” overbroad because the possibility of unintentional violation exists; remanded to rephrase the condition); Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)(special condition of no contact with female minor could make defendant subject “to unintentional violation should he subsequently be inadvertently placed in a work or social situation where young girls are present, without their…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matos v. Budget Rent A CAR Sys., Inc., 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Cartwright v. State, 635 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)