ALVIN WILLARD SCHULTZ, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed and remanded a trial court's denial of a motion to modify probation conditions, finding conditions sixteen and eighteen facially deficient and internally inconsistent regarding association with minors.
A probation condition prohibiting association with minors without limiting language is facially deficient and should be clarified on remand, even though violations require willful conduct.
[1] A probation condition prohibiting association with minors without limiting language is facially deficient and subject to clarification on remand, notwithstanding that pro…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“violations must be established as wilful”
The court acknowledged that despite facial deficiency, probation violations require willful conduct under Manon v. State.
Alvin Willard Schultz was sentenced to a split sentence with probation and challenged the trial court's denial of his motion to modify probation condi…
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 Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Alvin Willard Schultz challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify conditions of probation as over-broad and inconsistent. Specifically, he objects to condition sixteen that prohibits association with minors with no limiting language which could lead to a violation for unintentional contact with those children. See Watkins v. State, 666 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Clarification of this condition may not be strictly necessary, as violations must be established as wilful. See Manon v. State, 740 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Nevertheless, we respect Schultz’s desire to correct a facially deficient condition of probation as he embarks on the probationary term of a split sentence, and remand to the trial court to address this claim.
Schultz also points out imprecision in condition eighteen that forbids him from living with any adult who has minor offspring, whether or not the adult is the custodial parent of those children. In addition, the provisions of conditions eighteen and sixteen permit Schultz, ironically, to fulfill a less rigorous rehabilitation in order for him to reside with children than it does for him simply to have contact with them. We doubt this was the trial court’s intent. While these ambiguities may not require correction, the trial court may wish to revisit them at the time that it addresses the deficiency in condition sixteen.
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and GREEN and STRINGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Calidonio v. State, 951 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…is entitled to the relief he sought in his 3.800(b) motion, as a condition of probation which prohibits any contact with a child under 18 years of age is impermissibly broad. See Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Schultz v. State, 793 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Lambert v. State, 635 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, it is well settled that a trial court has no jurisdiction to rule on a rule 3.800(b) motion after 60 days and an order filed more than 60 days after the motion was f…
-
Coogle v. State, 811 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…led to preserve the issue for appellate review. Additionally, due to his failure to file a motion to withdraw his plea, Coogle has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of whether his plea was knowingly entered. See Meriweather v. State, 793 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere must file a motion to withdraw plea in order to preserve a claim that the trial court entered a sentence which exceeded the terms of the plea agreement); see also Gaff…
-
Kirkland v. State, 830 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…elines range in accordance with a plea agreement he entered into at his original sentencing hearing. Kirkland, however, failed to preserve this issue for review on direct appeal because he did not move to withdraw his plea. See Meriweather v. State, 793 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). We therefore affirm Kirkland’s sentence without prejudice to any right he may have to file a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. See Coogle v. State, 811 So. 2d 782 (Fla. 2d DCA…
Authorities Cited
- Matos v. Budget Rent A CAR Sys., Inc., 658 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Manon v. State, 740 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Watkins v. State, 666 So. 2d 207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)