LEN SHANNON VERNON, 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.
Len Shannon Vernon appeals the revocation of his probation in four cases. The appellate court affirmed the revocation based on violations of three probation conditions but reversed and remanded regarding a fourth condition (drug and alcohol treatment) because the probation order failed to specify a completion deadline.
The court affirmed revocation based on violations of conditions five, seven, and twenty-three as constituting substantial violations. The court reversed the finding of violation of condition thirty-two because the probation order did not specify a deadline for completing the drug treatment program and sufficient time remained in the probationary period for completion.
[1] A probation revocation order may be affirmed based on violations of other probation conditions, even if one alleged violation is reversed.
[2] A probationer cannot be found in violation of a condition requiring completion of a drug treatment program if the probation order does not specify a time for completion a…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“a trial court may not revoke probation for failure to complete a drug treatment program if sufficient time in the probationary period remains for a probationer to complete the program and the probation order did not specify that the program be completed within a certain time period or within a certain number of attempts”
Establishes the legal standard for drug treatment program completion violations in probation revocation cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceVernon was placed on probation with various conditions, including condition thirty-two requiring drug and alcohol evaluations within thirty days and r…
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 Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
[*473] WHATLEY, Judge.
Len Shannon Vernon appeals an order revoking his probation in four separate cases.1 After a hearing, the trial court found that Vernon had violated four conditions of his probation. We affirm the revocation order based on Vernon’s violation of conditions five, seven, and twenty-three of his probation, reverse as to the violation of condition thirty-two, and remand for the trial court to strike that violation from the revocation order. Condition thirty-two of Vernon’s probation required that he obtain drug and alcohol evaluations within thirty days and receive drug and alcohol treatment. It was alleged that Vernon violated this condition when he was unsuccessfully discharged from “DACCO,” a drug treatment program.
On appeal, Vernon argues that he was improperly found in violation of this condition because the probation order did not give him a specific time within which to complete a drug treatment program. The State agrees and acknowledges that the portion of the probation revocation order finding Vernon in violation of condition thirty-two must be stricken. See Anderson v. State, 942 So. 2d 1015, 1017-18 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that a trial court may not revoke probation for failure to complete a drug treatment program if sufficient time in the probationary period remains for a probationer to complete the program and the probation order did not specify that the program be completed within a certain time period or within a certain number of attempts).2
Because Vernon’s remaining violations constitute substantial violations sufficient to support the revocation of his probation, we affirm the revocation order based on his violation of conditions five, seven, and twenty-three. See Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). We reverse as to the violation of condition thirty-two and remand for the trial court to strike the violation of condition thirty-two from the revocation order. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.
ALTENBERND and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . Vernon filed a notice of appeal in case numbers 04-18342, 04-18344, 04-18630, and OS-2124.
. We note that Vernon had over two years remaining in his probationary period when his probation was revoked.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2007)…olve distinct categories of treatment programs. However, there are a number of other conflicting Second District decisions that were not certified involving 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…
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Anderson v. State, 942 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)