MICHAEL DUER, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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 Duer's conviction for lewd acts on a child but reversed and remanded the overbroad probation condition prohibiting all contact with any child under eighteen, which could result in inadvertent violations beyond the defendant's control.
A probation condition prohibiting all contact with any child under eighteen years of age is overbroad and improper because it may place the defendant in situations with children present beyond his control.
[1] A probation condition prohibiting a sex offender from having any contact with any child under eighteen years of age is overbroad and improper because it may inadvertently…
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“You will not have contact with the following persons, either personally, by telephone, in writing or by message delivered by others: any child under eighteen years of age.”
The special condition of probation imposed by the trial court that the court found to be overbroad.
Duer was convicted of three counts of lewd acts on a child and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was sentenced to 7 years in…
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 Contributing To The Delinquency Of A Minor cases and more on FLexlaw
W. SHARP, Judge.
Duer argues on appeal that a condition of probation imposed as part of his sentence is over-broad. He had been convicted and sentenced for three counts of lewd acts on a child,1 and one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.2 He was sentenced to 7 years in prison, followed by 2 years on community control, followed by 6 years on probation. The state cross-appeals the amount of time served with which he was credited against his sentences. We do not address this issue because it was not preserved for purposes of appeal.
The state concedes the special condition of probation is improper. It reads as follows:
You will not have contact with the following persons, either personally, by telephone, in writing or by message delivered by others: any child under eighteen years of age.
In other cases, this court has held that such a broad condition is improper because the defendant might inadvertently be placed in a situation where children are present, which is beyond his control. See Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Near v. State, 678 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court for the purpose of refashioning the condition of probation in order to minimize inadvertent violation.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
DAUKSCH and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . § 800.04, Fla. Slat. (1995).
. § 827.04, Fla. Stat. (1995).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Matos v. Budget Rent A CAR Sys., Inc., 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Near v. State, 678 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)