EDWARD WALTON, 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 Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation of Walton's probation after he willfully violated a substantial condition by providing false answers to his probation officer regarding his parole status and identity. The court held that Walton's deliberate deception about being on life parole in New York for armed robbery constituted a willful and substantial violation of probation conditions.
The court affirmed that Walton willfully violated a substantial condition of probation. His deliberate false statements to his probation officer about parole status, combined with his concealment of his true identity and arrest from his parole officer, constituted a willful and substantial violation of probation conditions.
[1] A willful violation of a substantial condition of probation is supported by evidence that a probationer failed to truthfully answer questions from their probation officer…
[2] A probationer's failure to disclose their true identity and prior criminal history, particularly a life parole for armed robbery, constitutes a substantial and willful vi…
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“He has, in fact, violated, the violation is willful, it is in fact substantial. The people of the State of Florida have an interest in knowing when people are on parole from other jurisdictions, particularly life felonies and we shall find the gentleman guilty of ... failing to truthfully respond to the question as put forth.”
Trial court's reasoning for finding a willful and substantial violation of probation based on Walton's false statements regarding his parole status
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWalton's probation officer instructed him to respond truthfully to questions and asked if he was under any other supervision. Walton falsely stated he…
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 Prior Criminal Record cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, J.
We affirm an order revoking Walton’s probation. There is evidence in the record supporting a finding that he willfully violated a substantial condition of probation by failing to truthfully answer questions directed to him by his probation officer. Walton’s probation officer instructed that he must respond truthfully to any of his questions and asked him if he was currently on any other form of supervision. Walton responded that he was on misdemeanor probation for a DUI. The probation officer also asked if he was on parole, and Walton responded that he had been on parole but had completed that parole and was not currently on parole. Walton did, however, report that he had used an alias. It was later learned that Walton was on life parole in New York for armed robbery under the alias name. There was also evidence that when his parole was transferred here, Walton did not advise his parole office of his true identity, nor did he advise the parole officer of his arrest in this case. In finding a willful violation, the court said:
He has, in fact, violated, the violation is willful, it is in fact substantial. The people of the State of Florida have an interest in knowing when people are on parole from other jurisdictions, particularly life felonies and we shall find the gentleman guilty of ... failing to truthfully respond to the question as put forth.
In Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), this court concluded that where the appellant was untruthful regarding his employment and his reasons for leaving his residence, the finding of willful and substantial violation of conditions of community control was supported by the record. In Roseboro v. State, 528 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), where the probationer lied to the probation officer about his true name and prior criminal record, the court held that the violation was not trivial, as argued by the appellant, but “constituted a ‘substantial’ violation” of the condition of probation. Id.
The trial judge’s ruling that the violation was willful was supported by the record. The question of willfulness, as any intent issue, is generally proven by means of circumstantial evidence. See King v. State, 545 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Here, in addition to his failure to truthfully answer the probation officer’s inquiry, Walton also hid his true identity and arrest from his parole officer, further showing that he willfully kept the fact of his parole from his probation officer in this case.
As to the other arguments asserted, we also find no abuse of discretion.
DELL and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hanania v. State, 855 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…tate, 823 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The standard of review that applies to an order revoking probation is abuse of discretion. Id. The issue of whether a violation was willful may be proven by circumstantial evidence. See Walton v. State, 780 So. 2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). The State suggests that the evidence of Hanania’s proximity to the contraband was sufficient to establish the violation of conditions 6 and 12. We disagree. Nothing in the record demonstrated that Hanania knew of the prese…
-
Yerrick v. State, 979 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…See Kaduk v. State, 959 So. 2d 817, 820 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“The trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and an appellate court must give great deference to the findings of the trial court.”); Walton v. State,' 780 So. 2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (recognizing intent is ordinarily established by circumstantial evidence). Thus, for the reasons discussed, we hold that Yerrick’s probation was properly revoked only on the basis of counts I (failure to report), VI (explo…
-
Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 998 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 2008)…t evidence presented that animus was the motive for Judge Allen’s concurring opinion, motive and intent are generally proven through circumstantial evidence. See generally Perreault v. State, 831 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Walton v. State, 780 So. 2d 1043 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (recognizing that intent is ordinarily established by circumstantial evidence); Grover v. State, 581 So. 2d 1379, 1380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (“It is black-letter of course that intent, being a state of mind, is rarely if ever susce…
Authorities Cited
- Ogden King, Jr. v. State, 545 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Roseboro v. State, 528 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)