STEPHEN ROMAN SCHOELLER, 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 a defendant must challenge the validity of a probation condition before reaped benefits, and that a substantively similar condition was invalid.
The defendant appealed a probation sentence condition, arguing it was invalid. He filed a motion to correct sentencing error, which the trial court de…
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 Waiver Of Right To Challenge On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Defendant appeals from a sentence imposed upon revocation of probation. Part of the sentence imposed was a three-year term of drug offender probation. The Defendant challenges the following condition of his probation:
(7) You will work diligently at a lawful occupation, inform your employer of your probationary status and support any dependents to the best of your ability as directed by your Officer. The Defendant has not been charged with violating this current term of probation. Rather, he challenges his sentence purely on the basis that the above-cited condition is invalid.
After filing his appeal, the Defendant timely filed a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error. The trial court denied the Defendant’s motion. We reverse and remand.
Contrary to the State’s suggestion, the Defendant was required to challenge the validity of the probation condition now before he reaped the benefits of probation; had he waited till after he had violated the condition, he would have waived his opportunity to challenge it. See Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72, 74, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (en banc). Moreover, we have held that a probation condition substantively similar to the one challenged here is invalid. See Mathis v. State, 683 So. 2d 634, 636 (Fla, 4th DCA 1996), receded from on other grounds by Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (en banc).
Accordingly, the trial court erred by denying the Defendant’s motion. This case is remanded for revision of condition (7) of the Defendant’s probation order in accordance with the prescript of and reasoning behind Mathis.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
GUNTHER, POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Thurman, 791 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…to imposition of these conditions and also waived any objection by waiting until after he had violated one of the conditions to challenge the validity of the conditions. See Gallagher v. State, 421 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Schoeller v. State, 791 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). It was error to dismiss the probation violation proceeding. REVERSED and REMANDED. SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur. . According to this section, special conditions must be…
Authorities Cited
- Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Still v. Polecat Indus., Inc., 683 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)