ANTHONY D. BROWN, 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.
Anthony Brown appeals the revocation of his probation for failing to contact or report to his probation officer as instructed on July 26, 1999. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirms the revocation, holding that Brown's failure to follow routine supervisory instructions constitutes a willful and substantial violation of probation conditions.
The court affirmed the revocation, holding that Brown's failure to follow the routine supervisory instruction to report or call his probation officer on July 26 constitutes a willful and substantial violation. The court found that Brown's complete failure to report or comply demonstrates indifference to his probation conditions and is a proper ground for revocation.
[1] A violation of probation must be willful and substantial to trigger revocation.
[2] Whether a probation violation is willful and substantial is a question of fact that will not be overturned on appeal unless the record shows no evidence to support the de…
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 intelligence“A violation which triggers revocation of probation must be willful and substantial.”
Establishes the legal standard for probation revocation that applies to Brown's case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrown pleaded nolo contendere to drug and forgery charges on July 12, 1999, and was sentenced to four years supervised probation. He reported to his 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 Willful And Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Anthony Brown appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation. Brown asserts that he did not substantially violate the conditions of his probation. We find no error and affirm.
On July 12, 1999, Brown pled nolo con-tendere to charges of Sale or Delivery of Cocaine, Possession of Cocaine and Uttering a Forged Instrument. As a result of a plea agreement, Brown was sentenced to four years supervised probation. Brown reported to his probation officer for the first and only time on July 19, 1999. Since the probation officer had not yet received his file, she instructed Brown to contact her on July 26 to make an appointment to report back to the probation office to finish going over the file and the probation order. Brown failed to report or to contact the probation officer as instructed on July 26. On July 28, the probation officer telephoned Brown’s mother to determine his whereabouts. Brown’s mother said that she had not seen him in days and did not know if he was still alive. When Brown returned home, his mother told him that he was to call his probation officer, though he never did so.1
The trial judge found that Brown had violated the terms of this probation order by ignoring his officer’s instructions to call in or to report on July 26.2
A violation which triggers revocation of probation must be willful and substantial. Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Whether a violation is willful and substantial is a question of fact that will not be overturned on appeal unless the record shows no evidence to support the determination. Manon v. State, 740 So. 2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In this case, Brown’s probation order required him to “comply with all instructions [his] officer may give [him].” His probation officer instructed him to report or to contact her on July 26, 1999, so that an appointment could be made to complete his initial review. Brown failed to call in or report as instructed.
Brown claims that his failure to follow the instructions of his probation officer is not a “substantial” violation. However, this court has previously stated that “[t]he failure to follow routine supervisory instructions given by a probation officer is a proper ground for revocation.” Goley v. State, 584 So. 2d 139, 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In this case, Brown not only failed to call in or to report on the day required, but he failed to report at all.3 This shows “a complete indifference to compliance with [the] conditions of probation.” Goley, 584 So. 2d at 141.
AFFIRMED.
COBB and SAWAYA, JJ., concur. . The record is unclear as to the date Brown first returned home after the probation officer's call.
. Condition 9 of the standard conditions of probation provides that the defendant will, "[Cjomply with all instructions your officer may give you.”
.Brown apparently thought that his monthly reporting period was between the 8th and 14th of each month. Although the arrest warrant was issued on August 2, Brown was not taken into custody until August 20, six days after he thought he was required to, but did not, make his monthly report.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Robinson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…or the new law violations, and condition 9, by failing to follow instructions and report to the probation office. These are willful and substantial violations of probation. Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State, 776 So. 2d 329, 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Although these violations are sufficient to support revocation, it is unclear from the record whether the trial court would have exercised its discretion to revoke Mr. Robinson’s probation based solely on these violations,…
-
La Ronn Marquies Wilson v. State, 781 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…nd that Wilson’s conduct of visiting E.S.’s mother was indirect contact with E.S. Whether a violation is willful and substantial is a factual issue which may not be overturned on appeal unless there is no evidence to support it. See Brown v. State, 776 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). In Rodriguez v. State, 768 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), this court recently found that a single missed appointment with a probation officer, where a valid explanation is proffered, is insufficient to demonstrate willful and…
-
Ewell v. State, 852 So. 2d 436 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…. 5th DCA 2002); Nichols v. State, 747 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Whether a violation is willful and substantial is a question of fact that will not be overturned on appeal unless the record shows no evidence to support it. See Brown v. State, 776 So. 2d 329, 330 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001); Thomas v. State, 760 So. 2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Manon v. State, 740 So. 2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Where the failure to pay is beyond the defendant’s ability, the failure cannot justify revocation of pro…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Goley v. State, 584 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Manon v. State, 740 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)