MICHAEL W. MOORE, SECRETARY FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PETITIONER,
v.
BASIL PROCTOR, RESPONDENT
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 quashed a trial court order allowing a sexual battery probationer to reside in New York without the statutorily required contingency on receiving state approval under the Interstate Compact.
A trial court order permitting a sexual battery probationer to reside in another state must be contingent upon approval of the receiving state's interstate compact authority under Fla. Stat. § 948.03(6).
[1] An order permitting a sexual battery probationer to reside in another state is void unless it expressly conditions the residence on approval by the receiving state's inte…
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“if the order stipulates that it is contingent upon the approval of the receiving state interstate compact authority”
Statutory requirement for allowing out-of-state residence for sexual battery offenders under § 948.03(6)
Basil Proctor was convicted of two counts of sexual battery. The trial court allowed him to reside in New York and report by telephone to his Florida …
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 Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The secretary of the department of corrections petitions for certiorari relief from a trial court order which allows the respondent to reside in New York and to report by telephone to his probation officer in Florida.
Because the respondent was convicted of two counts of sexual battery in violation of section 794.011, the trial court could allow his residence in another state only “if the order stipulates that it is contingent upon the approval of the receiving state interstate compact authority.” § 948.03(6), Fla. Stat. (2000). The order did not so stipulate, and in fact it was entered after the Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives of the State of New York rejected the department’s request, pursuant to rule 2-101 of the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Parolees and Probationers, and requested the respondent’s removal from the state of New York. We grant the petition and quash the order. See State, Dep’t of Corr. v. Coleman, 766 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
The respondent indicates that the New York authorities have since agreed to accept probation supervision over him. We disagree with his contention that such action renders the instant petition moot, as it continues to allow his residence in another state without the contingency required by the statute. Of course, the respondent may request a proper order from the circuit court, allowing him to reside in New York contingent upon the approval of that state’s interstate compact authority.
POLEN, C.J., DELL and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Moore v. Nelson, 830 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…for supervision and instructed him to return to Florida immediately. On June 26, 2002, the trial court entered an “Order of Modification of Probation” wherein it stated, in part, that respondent “may remain in North Carolina.” In Moore v. Proctor, 795 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this court granted the Secretary of the Department of Corrections’ petition for certiorari relief from a trial court order which allowed the respondent to reside in another state and report by telephone to his probation officer…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Coleman, 766 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)