FRANK YATES, 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.
Frank Yates appeals the revocation of his community control and three-year prison sentence based on alleged violation of a condition requiring completion of the PAR drug treatment program. The court reversed, finding the State failed to prove a willful and substantial violation because the community control order lacked specificity regarding the timeframe and number of attempts allowed to complete the program.
The court held that the State failed to prove a willful and substantial violation because: (1) the State did not establish that Yates was unwilling or unable to complete the program during the remaining term of community control, and (2) the community control order lacked specificity regarding the period for completion and the number of chances to succeed, warranting reversal.
[1] A trial court may revoke community control only if the State proves by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant willfully and substantially violated a specif…
[2] Termination from a required program does not constitute a willful and substantial violation of community control if the community control order lacks specificity regardin…
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“The trial court may revoke probation or community control only if the State proves by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant willfully and substantially violated a specific condition of the probation or community control.”
Establishes the legal standard the State must meet to revoke community control
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYates was placed on community control with a special condition requiring him to enter and successfully complete the PAR drug treatment program. After …
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 Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge.
Frank Yates appeals orders revoking his community control and imposing a three-year prison sentence. He claims that the asserted violation of a condition of his community control was not willful and substantial. We agree and reverse.
Special condition 17 of Mr. Yates’ community control order required him to enter and successfully complete the PAR drug treatment program. After completing most of the program, Mr. Yates violated a PAR rule and was terminated. An affidavit of violation of community control was filed with the trial court.
At his revocation hearing, Mr. Yates asserted that termination prior to the completion of the required PAR program was not a willful and substantial violation of the community control order because the order did not require completion within a specified time and sufficient time remained for him to complete the program. See Wilkerson v. State, 884 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
The trial court may revoke probation or community control only if the State proves by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant willfully and substantially violated a specific condition of the probation or community control. Pa delt v. State, 793 So. 2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Here, the State failed to satisfy its burden.
Although PAR terminated Mr. Yates’ participation in its program, the State did not establish that he was unwilling or unable to complete the program during the remaining term of his community control. See Wilkerson, 884 So. 2d at 154. Moreover, the community control order did not specify the period within which Mr. Yates was to complete the PAR program or how many chances he would have to succeed. The absence of such specificity warrants reversal. See Jones v. State, 744 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (trial court erred in revoking community control on basis of defendant’s discharge from residential treatment program when order lacked specificity and defendant desired treatment); Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (revocation of community control reversed where order did not specify time period within which to complete program or how many chances defendant would have to complete program).
We reverse the orders revoking community control and imposing a prison sentence and remand for further proceedings.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2007)…drug treatment programs in which the court also applied a per se rule. See Vernon v. State, 958 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Anderson v. State, 942 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Spaydev. State, 899 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Yates v. State, 909 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Hardy v. State, 845 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Jones v. State, 744 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). . The acronym TASC stands for "Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime.” Gunder v. State, 867 So. 2d 565, 565 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004…
-
del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)…may revoke probation or community control only if the State proves by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant willfully and substantially violated a specific condition of the probation or community control.' " (quoting Yates v. State, 909 So. 2d 974, 974-75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005))); Edwards v. State, 892 So. 2d 1192, 1194 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ("The State carries the burden of proving by the greater weight of the evidence that a probationer has willfully and substantially violated her probation.”); H…
-
Stewart v. State, 926 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…nly if the State proves by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant willfully and substantially violated a specific condition of the probation or community control. Padelt v. State, 793 So. 2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Yates v. State, 909 So. 2d 974, 974-75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Whether a violation is willful and substantial must be decided case by case. See State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 261 (Fla.2002). This determination is necessary because to revoke probation or community control, a violat…
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
- Ricci M. Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Jones v. State, 744 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Wilkerson v. State, 884 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Padelt v. State, 793 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)