EDWARD W. SLOVAK, 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 termination from a sex offender treatment program was not a willful and substantial violation of probation when the defendant attended but did not participate due to discomfort with the group's composition.
Edward W. Slovak was placed on probation with a condition to attend sex offender counseling. He was later terminated from the program for not particip…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
FULMER, Judge.
Edward W. Slovak appeals the revocation of his probation and argues that his termination from a sex offender treatment program was not a willful and substantial violation. We agree and reverse.
In 1998, Slovak pleaded guilty to committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under sixteen and to harboring a runaway. Slovak was placed on one year of community control followed by three years of probation with a condition requiring that Slovak “attend sex offender counseling.”
In June 2002, an affidavit was filed alleging that Slovak violated probation because he was terminated from sex offender counseling. The affidavit also alleged that Slovak failed to pay some costs of supervision and failed to meet his probation officer at a specified time, but the trial court rejected these allegations after hearing the evidence. At the hearing, Slovak testified that he had attended sex offender counseling for four years and had only one absence, which was excused. Slovak further testified that he participated the best he could but his participation was hampered because he was uncomfortable with the issues raised by the group. The program director testified that he terminated Slovak from the program in June 2002 because Slovak attended but did not really participate in the group therapy. Slovak testified, and the program director agreed, that Slovak was placed in a counseling group whose members had committed more serious offenses that were different from Slovak’s offense.
Slovak argues that the evidence does not show a willful and substantial violation of the condition that he attend sex offender counseling. We agree. See Lawson v. State, 845 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (reversing because evidence failed to show willful and substantial violation of probation when defendant had near perfect attendance record at sex offender counseling). Accordingly, we reverse.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Oertel v. State, 82 So. 3d 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…his probation. I know it’s just proof beyond — the doubt is a lot less than beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don’t have a reasonable doubt even. I have no doubt at all as a matter of fact. This appeal followed. Oertel, relying on Slovak v. State, 862 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), argues that the trial court erred in finding that he willfully and substantially violated his probation because he was inappropriately placed at CORTE, had a perfect attendance record, paid for every session, committed no new sub…
-
Stanley v. State, 922 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…btain treatment in another program until after he had been violated. We conclude that the evidence in this record does not support the finding that Stanley willfully and substantially violated condition 13 of his term of probation. Slovak v. State, 862 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(termination from sex offender treatment insufficient to show willful and substantial violation of probation where defendant attended treatment for four years and had participated as best as he could although participation hampered…
Authorities Cited
- Lawson v. State, 845 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)