STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER THURMAN, 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 State appealed a trial court's dismissal of probation violation charges against Walter Thurman, who had pleaded no contest to attempted lewd act upon a child. The court reversed, holding that sex offender probation conditions under Florida Statutes § 948.03 may be imposed on defendants convicted of attempted sex offenses, particularly where the defendant agreed to such conditions as part of a plea bargain.
Sex offender probation conditions under § 948.03(5) may be imposed on defendants convicted of attempted sex offenses, and such conditions were not improper where the defendant agreed to them as part of a plea agreement and waived objection by raising the challenge only after violating one of the conditions.
[1] A defendant who agrees to sex offender probation conditions as part of a plea bargain cannot later challenge the imposition of those conditions after violating probation.
[2] A trial court may impose sex offender probation conditions on a defendant convicted of an attempted lewd act.
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“We agree with Wilcox that it was not improper for the trial court to subject Thurman to sex offender probation conditions. We also see no reason why the trial court could not, in its discretion, impose the conditions enumerated in section 948.03 on a defendant convicted of an attempted lewd act.”
Establishes the core holding that sex offender probation conditions may be imposed on attempted sex offense convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1999, Thurman was charged with performing a lewd act upon a child. He entered a plea agreement to plead no contest to attempted lewd act upon a chi…
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 Attempted Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
In 1999, the defendant below, Walter Thurman [“Thurman”], was charged with performing a lewd act upon a child pursuant to section 800.04(1), Florida Statutes (1999). He entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead no contest to attempted lewd act upon a child, section 777.04, Florida Statutes (1999), and a sentence of five years probation with standard sex offender conditions.
On March 29, 2000, Thurman violated probation by selling alcohol from his home without a license and was given time served. On August 10, 2000, his probation officer filed another affidavit of violation alleging that Thurman was living within 1000 feet of where children congregate and that he had failed to complete a mandatory sex offender program. On September 25, 2000, Thurman filed a Motion to Dismiss the affidavit of violation of probation, asserting that the sex offender conditions specified in section 948.03(5)1, Florida Statutes (1999), apply only to defendants convicted of sex offenses, and he was convicted only of attempt. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, basing its decision on Lee v. State, 766 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). The State appeals and we reverse.
The State urges that Thurman cannot complain that the terms of probation were improper because he did not appeal them, and purports to complain only after violating the probation. Also, Thurman agreed to sex offender probation as part of the plea bargain, which distinguishes this case from Lee.
The defendant in Lee pled no contest to attempted sexual battery, reserving his right to appeal. He was placed on community control for two years under conditions enumerated in section 948.03(5)(a), Florida Statutes (1999). Lee urged that the conditions were illegally imposed since he was not convicted of sexual battery, but rather attempted sexual battery. The First District initially agreed with Lee and remanded to the trial court with instructions to strike the conditions.
The First District has now receded from Lee, in Wilcox v. State, 783 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(en banc). We agree with Wilcox that it was not improper for the trial court to subject Thurman to sex offender probation conditions. We also see no reason why the trial court could not, in its discretion, impose the conditions enumerated in section 948.03 on a defendant convicted of an attempted lewd act. Thurman agreed 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 imposed for probationers who are placed under supervision for violation of chapter 794, § 800.04, § 827.071, or § 847.0145.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Fureman, 161 So. 3d 403 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…ly, we hold that the lower court erred in refusing to impose sex offender probation. We have previously held that attempted sexual battery is an offense under the sexual battery statute, as opposed to the attempt statute. In [*408] State v. Thurman, 791 So. 2d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we held that it was not error for the lower court to impose sex offender probation where a defendant who had been charged with performing a lewd act upon a child pursuant to section 800,04(1), Florida Statutes (1999), plea…
-
Donovan v. State, 821 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…battery statute, rather than merely an offense under the attempt statute and, therefore, the trial court could properly impose sex offender conditions of probation upon defendant’s conviction of attempted capital sexual battery. In State v. Thurman, 791 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we adopted the reasoning in Wilcox, holding that it was not improper for the trial court to subject a defendant to sex offender probation conditions when he pled no contest to an attempted lewd act upon a child. Judgment and Se…
-
Swartz v. State, 963 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. Thurman, 791 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). TORPY, LAWSON and EVANDER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Wilcox v. State, 783 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Gallagher v. State, 421 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Hormuth v. Hormuth, 766 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- LEE v. State, 766 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Schoeller v. State, 791 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)