OTIS BUTLER, 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 technical omission of failing to submit one monthly report, by itself, and the failure to enroll in educational classes due to confusion and transportation issues, do not constitute willful and substantial violations sufficient to revoke probation.
[1] Probation revocation requires proof of a willful and substantial violation by the greater weight of the evidence.
[2] The technical omission of failing to submit a single monthly probation report, by itself, does not constitute a substantial violation sufficient for revocation.
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Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOtis Butler's probation was revoked for failing to file a monthly report and failing to enroll in educational classes. He appealed, arguing these viol…
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 Probation Revocation Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Judge.
Otis Butler appeals the revocation of his probation and argues that his violations were neither willful nor substantial. We agree and reverse.
The trial court found that Mr. Butler violated probation by failing to file a monthly report and by failing to enroll in educational classes. Probation can be revoked only on the basis of a willful and substantial violation, which must be shown by the greater weight of the evidence. See Sanders v. State, 675 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). This court has held that 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 not a substantial violation.
The trial court also found that Mr. Butler had failed to enroll in GED classes. From the evidence at the revocation hearing, it appears that Mr. Butler’s failure to comply with this condition resulted from confusion regarding the requirement and because of a transportation problem, not because of a deliberate act of misconduct. See McCoy v. State, 730 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Furthermore, the condition did not specify a time by which the classes were to begin and the probation officer did not specify a date certain for compliance. See Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (reversing revocation where condition did not specify period within which completion of counseling was required). We conclude that the evidence failed to show a willful and substantial violation of this condition.
Accordingly, we reverse the revocation and remand for the trial court to reinstate Mr. Butler’s probation.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)…action to clarify which probation violations are “material,” I would follow those district courts that have held that this type of isolated technical probation violation does not rise to the level of a revocable violation. See e.g., Butler v. State, 775 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Sanders v. State, 675 So. 2d 665, 665-66 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (citing Glenn v. State, 558 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)); Moore v. State, 632 So. 2d 199, 199 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Moreover, today’s majority decision gives litt…
-
Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2007)…State, 902 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (domestic vio [*226] lence program); Lynom v. State, 816 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (sex offender probation); Dunkin v. State, 780 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (sex offender probation); Butler v. State, 775 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (GED program); O'Neal v. State, 801 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (domestic violence program). However, the certified question in this case specifically concerns the revocation of probation after being discharged from a court-ord…
-
Dwaine Woodson v. State, 864 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…mple, the cases cited by Woodson involve successful completion of a drug rehabilitation,4 anger management,5 or mental health program,6 each of which is a special condition of probation not required to be imposed by the Legislature. Butler v. State, 775 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), involved the condition that the defendant obtain his GED, while O’Neal v. State, 801 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), and Mitchell v. State, 717 So. 2d 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), involved imposition of the batterer’s intervention pr…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ricci M. Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Williams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Sanders v. State, 675 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Glenn v. State, 558 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- McCOY v. State, 730 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)