TODD VALENTE, 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.
The court held that the failure to proffer evidence of litigation prevented appellate review of the exclusion of that evidence, and that the probation order's language protected the appellant from penalties for unemployment.
Appellant was convicted of workers compensation fraud, grand theft, and perjury. He appealed, arguing the trial court erred by excluding evidence of p…
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 Proffer Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Todd Valente appeals convictions for workers compensation fraud, grand theft and perjury, alleging that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of a history of litigation between a witness who testified against the appellant and the appellant’s father. He also alleges that the court erred by imposing the condition of probation that requires him to work diligently at a lawful occupation without considering the possibility that economic conditions could frustrate his attempt.
The record reflects that a question during cross-examination was posed by defense counsel as to whether litigation occurred between the witness and the appellant’s father. No evidence of any litigation was elicited from the witness because the state promptly objected, and no proffer was made after the objection was sustained by the court. The failure to proffer any evidence which would demonstrate whether or not the testimony was properly excluded prevents appellate review of this point. Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674, 684 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1096, 116 S.Ct. 823, 133 L.Ed.2d 766 (1996); A. McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Ketrow v. State, 414 So. 2d 298, 299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Appellant’s probation order, which requires him to work diligently included the provision “to the best of your ability.” The inclusion of such language avoids the potential that appellant will be penalized for unemployment. Reiter v. State, 674 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Gregory v. State, 616 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
The judgment and sentence are affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, GOSHORN and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gary v. State, 987 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…it to her probation officer, but the officer denied receiving it. The phrase in the employment condition “to the best of your ability” is included to avoid the possibility that the probationer will be penalized for unemployment. 1Sá-lente v. State, 705 So. 2d 656, 657 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). The State itself presented evidence that Gary had health concerns that might prevent her from working. In this circumstance, the evidence was not sufficient to show a willful and substantial violation of probation. Gary’s…
Authorities Cited
- Finney v. State, 660 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 1995)
- Cosme Rodriguez v. Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- McD. v. State, 422 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Gregory v. State, 616 So. 2d 174 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Reiter v. State, 674 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Ketrow v. State, 414 So. 2d 298 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Meadows v. Jackson, 516 U.S. 1096 (U.S. 1996)
- Echols v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 1096 (U.S. 1996)