SHEILA WILSON, 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.
Sheila Wilson appealed her conviction for driving under the influence resulting in death and driving with a suspended license resulting in death. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences but remanded to strike an unenforceable probation condition that prohibited association with persons who use illegal drugs, finding it impermissibly vague under prior precedent.
The court affirmed the convictions and sentences but held that the probation condition precluding association with persons who use illegal drugs is unenforceable as impermissibly vague and remanded for its removal from the probation order.
[1] A condition of probation is unenforceable if it is too vague and capable of unintentional violation.
[2] A trial court is bound by prior decisional law of an appellate court when interpreting the enforceability of probation conditions.
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 found such a condition unenforceable because it was too vague and capable of unintentional violation”
Establishes the legal principle that probation conditions prohibiting association with drug users violate prior precedent on vagueness grounds
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn August 19, 1997, Wilson was involved in an accident while driving with a blood alcohol level of .175. She was charged with DUI resulting in death a…
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 Anders Brief cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
Sheila Wilson was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol resulting in death and driving while license suspended resulting in death, based on an accident she was involved in on August 19, 1997, when she had a blood alcohol level of .175. She pleaded to the charges and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to twelve years’ incarceration followed by two years’ probation for the first charge and to time served for a lessor-included offense of the second.
On appeal, her counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and In re Appellate Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla.1991), finding no meritorious argument to support the contention that the trial court committed reversible error in this case, except for a minor sentencing error. After complete review of the appellate record, we agree.
In the order of probation, the trial court imposed condition eighteen, which precluded Ms. Wilson from associating with “persons who use illegal drugs.” In Flor v. State, 658 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), we found such a condition unenforceable because it was too vague and capable of unintentional violation. See also Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593, 595 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
The trial court found to the contrary, as expressed in its order on Ms. Wilson’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), that condition eighteen was permissible based on section 948.03(j), Florida Statutes (1997).
The trial court reasoned that the statute precluded probationers from associating with persons engaged in criminal activities, and because persons using illegal drugs are engaging in criminal activities, Ms. Wilson may be precluded from associating with them. We appreciate the argument but the trial court is bound by our prior decisional law, as expressed in Flor and Callaway finding this condition unenforceable.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentences except that we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to strike that portion of condition eighteen of the order of probation that precludes Ms. Wilson from associating with persons who use illegal drugs.
DAVIS and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.G. v. State, 896 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…pellate counsel preserved these issues by filing a motion pursuant to rule 8.135. We agree that, following the filing of an Anders brief, minor sentencing errors may be corrected by this court ordering remand to the trial court, see Wilson v. State, 857 So. 2d 223, 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), but, in the instant case, we find no error requiring correction. In N.C. v. Anderson, 882 So. 2d 990 (Fla.2004), the Supreme Court of Florida agreed with this court that due process does not require an oral pronouncement o…
-
Demott v. State, 160 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…probation, concluding that prohibiting the defendant from associating with persons who use illegal drugs was “too vague and capable of unintentional violation.” Id. Accord Flor v. State, 658 So. 2d 1176, 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In Wilson v. State, 857 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), the Second District revisited the issue. There, as in the instant case, the defendant filed a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion challenging the probationary condition prohibiting him from associating with persons who use illegal drugs. Id.…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- In re App. Court Response to Anders Briefs, 581 So. 2d 149 (Fla. 1991)
- Deldesondro Callaway v. State, 658 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Flor v. State, 658 So. 2d 1176 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)