JOSEPH FRANCIS MONROE, 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.
Joseph Monroe appeals the revocation of his probation based on alleged violations of two conditions. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that certain photographs violated a condition prohibiting obscene or sexually explicit material, as no reasonable person would classify them as such, and reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
The appellate court concluded that no reasonable person would find the photographs to be obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit as those terms are commonly understood, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion in making the contrary finding regarding condition 18. The court reversed and remanded for reconsideration because it was unclear whether the trial court would have revoked probation based solely on the condition 7 violation.
[1] An order revoking probation will be reversed if the trial court abused its discretion in finding a violation of probation conditions.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable, and no reasonable person would reach the same conclusion.
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 standard of review on appeal of an order revoking probation is abuse of discretion”
Establishes the legal standard for appellate review of probation revocation orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMonroe was on probation subject to conditions including condition 7 (working diligently at a lawful occupation) and condition 18 (not viewing, owning,…
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 Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order revoking his probation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that appellant had violated condition 7 of his probation by not “work[ing] diligently at a lawful occupation,” and condition 18 by “viewing], own[ing] or possess[ing] any obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit ... material.” Accordingly, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and sentenced him to ten years in prison. We have reviewed the photographs that supported the trial court’s finding that appellant had violated condition 18 and conclude that no reasonable person would find those photographs to be “obscene, pornographic, or sexually explicit” as those terms are commonly understood.
Accordingly, we conclude, further, that the trial court abused its discretion when it made the contrary finding. See, e.g., State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla.2002) (the standard of review on appeal of an order revoking probation is abuse of discretion) (citations omitted); Perez v. State, 919 So. 2d 347, 363 (Fla.2005) (no abuse of discretion will be found unless the trial court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable, and no reasonable person would reach the conclusion reached by the trial court) (citation omitted). It is not clear from the record whether the trial court would have revoked appellant’s probation and imposed the same sentence based solely on a violation of condition 7.
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration of the revocation and sentencing decisions. See Taylor v. State, 734 So. 2d 1171, 1172-73 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ALLEN, WEBSTER, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Danurel Daffin v. State, 31 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…h ed. 1999). See generally State v. Rabedeau, 2 So. 3d 191, 193 (Fla.2009). But “[(Concurrent sentences do not necessarily begin at the same time, and unless they are ordered to be coterminous, they will expire on different dates.” Llerena v. State, 953 So. 2d 31, 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (citing Knight v. State, 832 So. 2d 172, 172 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)). In the present case, the concurrent sentences for the new law violations began later than the sentence pronounced upon revocation of probation to which they wer…
-
Wilson v. State, 100 So. 3d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed without prejudice to any right appellant may have to file an appropriate postconviction motion. See, e.g., State v. Lyons, 979 So. 2d 1074 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Llerena v. State, 953 So. 2d 31, 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (remanding to trial court for examination of the plea transcript, clerk’s notes in the court file, and [*226] the judgment and sentence to determine whether the sentence was ordered to be coterminous with the other sentences i…
-
Eady v. State, 273 So. 3d 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
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
- State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)
- Perez v. State, 919 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2005)
- Taylor v. State, 734 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)