ROGER LEE WILLIAMS, 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 Williams appealed the revocation of his probation for alleged violations including battery and failure to submit monthly reports and urinalysis tests. The court reversed, finding that the record failed to support the trial court's finding that Williams' violations were willful and substantial, particularly given his documented severe depression during the relevant period.
The court reversed the probation revocation because: (1) the battery violation finding relied solely on hearsay evidence without the victim's testimony, which is insufficient for revocation; and (2) the technical violations (failure to file reports and submit to testing) were not proven to be willful and substantial, as Williams' severe depression rendered him unable to comply with probation terms.
[1] Hearsay evidence, while admissible in a probation revocation hearing, cannot be the sole basis for revocation.
[2] A probationer's failure to file monthly reports can be a sufficient basis for revocation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Although hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation revocation hearing, it cannot be the sole basis of revocation.”
Establishes the legal standard that hearsay alone is insufficient to revoke probation, supporting reversal of the battery charge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams pleaded guilty to aggravated child abuse in 1994 with no prior criminal record and was sentenced to two years of community control followed b…
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 Hearsay Evidence In Probation Revocation Hearings cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Roger Williams appeals from the order revoking his probation. We reverse because the record fails to support the trial court’s finding that Williams’ violations of the conditions of his probation were willful and substantial.
In 1994,' Williams pleaded guilty to aggravated child abuse. He had no prior criminal record. He was sentenced to two years of community control to be followed by three years of probation. He had successfully completed the community control and was serving his probation when he was arrested for battery (domestic violence).
In an affidavit and amended affidavit of violation of probation, Williams’ probation officer alleged that he had committed the battery, had failed to submit written monthly reports for March, April, and May of 1997, and he had failed to submit to urinalysis testing, as requested by his probation officer. At the probation revocation hearing, Officer Haranowski of the Tampa Police Department, testified over Williams’ hearsay objection that he investigated the battery and that the alleged victim, Ronnie Morrison, told him that Williams had struck her. Morrison did not testify. Williams testified that Morrison had attacked him and that he had pushed her in self-defense. No further evidence was offered. Although hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation revocation hearing, it cannot be the sole basis of revocation. See Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
We, therefore, reverse the finding that Williams violated his probation by committing a battery.
The remaining alleged violations, which are technical in nature, present a more difficult issue. These violations were proven by Williams’ probation officer’s uncontrovert-ed testimony. The question is whether the violations were substantial and willful. The failure to file monthly reports is a sufficient basis for revocation of probation. See Jordan v. State, 610 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The failure to submit to urine screens is also a valid basis for revocation. See Williams v. State, 563 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).
However, illness can render technical violations of probation not “substantial and willful.” See Rainer v. State, 657 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Either a mental or a physical illness can be debilitating to the point that a probationer cannot comply with the terms of his probation.
In his defense, Williams called Dr. Arturo G. Gonzalez, a psychiatrist, who testified that, during the relevant period of time, April, May, and June of 1997, Williams suffered from severe depression. In Dr. Gonzalez’s words, “[I]t was a very severe [depression] in my opinion ... he was just crippled.” Dr. Gonzalez went on to testify that Williams was immobilized by the depression and did not have the will to make decisions; therefore, he did not willfully fail to comply with the reporting conditions of his probation. We note that up until this period of time Williams had successfully completed more than two years of community control and probation, including an inpatient substance abuse program. These facts lend support to Dr. Gonzalez’s conclusions.
Because the record shows that the violations of probation were not willful and substantial, we reverse the revocation of Williams’ probation.
Reversed.
BLUE and GREEN, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Robinson v. State, 773 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…y 1998. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that Mr. Robinson did not [*568] file reports for those dates, and this court had held that the failure to file monthly reports is a sufficient basis to revoke probation. See Williams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Furthermore, the trial court found that Mr. Robinson failed to answer truthfully a question on his January 1998 report concerning whether he had been arrested the previous month. That finding was essentially grounded upon th…
-
Butler v. State, 775 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…hat the technical omission of failing to submit one monthly report, by itself, does not support revocation because it is not a substantial violation. See Sanders. See also Glenn v. State, 558 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). But see Williams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citing First District case for proposition that failure to file monthly reports is sufficient basis to revoke probation). We conclude that this violation alone would not support revocation of Mr. Butler’s probation because it was…
-
Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…). Similarly, illness can render technical violations of probation not substantial or willful because a mental or physical illness can be debilitating to the point that a probationer cannot comply with the terms of probation. See Williams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (probationer suffering from severe depression did not have the will to make decisions and, thus, did not willfully fail to [*433] comply with reporting conditions of probation); Rainer v. State, 657 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rainer v. State, 657 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Jordan v. State, 610 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Cable Vision OF Cent. Fla. & Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Armes, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Williams v. State, 563 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)