ROGER S. INMAN, 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.
Roger Inman appealed the revocation of his community control for allegedly violating a condition prohibiting contact with children under 18. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the evidence did not establish a substantial and willful violation because Inman did not initiate the contact and actively attempted to avoid it.
The court reversed the revocation order, holding that the evidence did not establish a willful and substantial violation because Inman did not initiate the contact with his sons and actively attempted to avoid the unauthorized visit.
[1] A violation of community control must be willful and substantial to warrant revocation.
[2] A defendant's attempt to avoid unauthorized contact with children, despite their presence, does not constitute a willful and substantial violation of community control.
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 which triggers a revocation of probation must be willful and substantial and must be proven by the greater weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for community control violations requiring revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceInman pleaded guilty in May 1992 to five sexual offenses involving a child and received suspended sentences with two years' community control followed…
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 Greater Weight Of The Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Acting Chief Judge.
Roger S. Inman appeals an order revoking his community control. We reverse because the evidence does not establish a substantial and willful violation.
On May 26, 1992, Mr. Inman pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual activity with a female child and two counts of lewd and lascivious acts involving the same child. §§ 794.041(2)(b), 800.04(1), Fla.Stat. (1991). He received concurrent suspended sentences for the five offenses. For the sexual activity charges, he was placed on two years’ community control followed by twenty years’ probation. For the lewd and lascivious acts, the trial court placed Mr. Inman on two years’ community control followed by thirteen years’ probation.
On July 21,1993, Mr. Inman allegedly violáted a condition of his community control that prohibited contact with children under the age of eighteen. The evidence at the hearing on this alleged violation established that his ex-wife came to his home unannounced on July 21, 1993, about noon. He was planning to enter the hospital the following day, and his ex-wife explained that his two sons, ages eight and eleven, wished to see him. He was with his fiance at the time and advised his ex-wife that the children’s visit would violate the conditions of his community control. Despite this information, she left the boys with Mr. Inman and his fiance. Shortly thereafter, a probation officer arrived because his office had received a telephone tip that children were at the home. The officer left before Mr. Inman’s ex-wife came to pick up the boys.
A violation which triggers a revocation of probation must be willful and substantial and must be proven by the greater weight of the evidence. McCumber v. State, 682 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In this case, there is no evidence that Mr. Inman initiated the contact, and the undisputed evidence establishes that he attempted to avoid the unauthorized visit. Nothing refutes the testimony of both his ex-wife and his fiance that his two sons visited him at the insistence of their mother and in the presence of Mr. Inman’s fiance. This is not evidence of a willful and substantial violation.
Reversed.
BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)…evoke probation or community control, a violation must always be determined to have been willful and substantial. See generally Thomas v. State, 760 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); McCray v. State, 754 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Inman v. State, 684 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Green v. State, 620 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). By placing reliance on Allen, the State is attempting to equate the term “substantial” with “substantive,” as used in section 958.14. However, because a violation must always…
-
Stewart v. State, 926 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…evoke probation or community control, a violation must always be determined to have been willful and substantial. See generally Thomas v. State, 760 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); McCray v. State, 754 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Inman v. State, 684 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Green v. State, 620 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982, 987 (Fla.2001). “The State bears the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of supervision” by competent evidence. Thompson v. S…
-
Thomas v. State, 760 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…residence. A violation of probation sufficient to revoke the probation 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. See, e.g., Inman v. State, 684 So. 2d 899. (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Sanders v. State, 675 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Green v. State, 620 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The state has the burden of proving by the greater weight of the evidence that the probationer’s actions were willful and…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCUMBER v. State, 682 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)