FRANK PACE, 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.
Court affirmed revocation of community control for willful and substantial violation of no-contact condition where appellant engaged in an upsetting accusatory conversation with the victim rather than immediately terminating the call.
A probationer willfully violates a no-contact condition by continuing an accusatory conversation with the prohibited contact even if the initial connection was inadvertent.
[1] A probationer violates a no-contact condition willfully and substantially by continuing a conversation with a prohibited contact after recognizing their identity, even if…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“appellant willfully carried on an upsetting and accusatory conversation with her instead of ending the call”
Court's explanation of why the violation was willful despite the initial contact being inadvertent
Appellant was on community control with a special condition prohibiting contact with the victim. He received a telephone call and, upon realizing the …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of appellant’s community control for violating a special condition that prohibited contact with the victim. This was not a ease, as appellant argues, where the contact with the victim was not willful and substantial because it was beyond his control. Even assuming that he got on the telephone without realizing that the victim was on the other end, appellant willfully carried on an upsetting and accusatory conversation with her instead of ending the call. While crying, appellant told the victim that he hated being on house arrest, that no one believed her story, that she was ripping the family apart and that he wanted her to tell everyone that she had fabricated the allegations against him. This is unlike the conduct in McCumber v. State, 682 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), in which the court found no willful or substantial violation of a no contact provision where the probationer received a call without knowing that his daughter was on the line and terminated the conversation after briefly speaking to her about school and her brother. We remand to the trial court for the entry of a written order revoking appellant’s community control. Home v. State, 675 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
WARNER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Freddy Armando Arias v. State, 751 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ith the victim through a third party. Certainly, a probationer’s willful contact with a victim after being prohibited by court order is a valid ground for revocation of probation. See Burse v. State, 724 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Pace v. State, 691 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The order of probation mandated that Arias have no association in any way with the victim. By his very own admission to his defense counsel at the revocation hearing, Arias acknowledged that he understood this special condition…
-
Isidro Cardenas v. State, 739 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Glee v. State, 731 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Burse v. State, 724 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Pace v. State, 691 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).…
Authorities Cited
- McCUMBER v. State, 682 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Sola Caribe, Inc. v. Progressive Tech., Inc., 675 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)