JESSIE JACKSON JR., 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.
Jackson appeals the revocation of his probation based on an admission to violating a no-contact condition. The court found that Jackson's counsel rendered ineffective assistance by allowing him to admit to an uncharged violation that would be insufficient for revocation even if charged, and by failing to preserve any objection.
Jackson is entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The telephone contact, even if a technical violation, was neither willful and substantial nor alleged in the affidavit, and therefore could not be a basis for revocation. Counsel's performance was deficient in permitting an admission to an uncharged and insufficient violation without objection.
[1] A probation revocation cannot be based on a violation that was not alleged in the affidavit of violation.
[2] A technical violation of a probation condition, particularly one initiated by the victim, may not constitute a willful and substantial violation sufficient for revocation…
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“Although the telephone contact which was initiated by the victim may have constituted a technical violation by Jackson of the no-contact condition, it was not a willful and substantial violation.”
Establishes that the contact at issue did not meet the legal standard for a valid probation violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson was subject to a probation condition prohibiting direct or indirect contact with the victim. A probation officer filed an affidavit alleging J…
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
CANADY, Judge.
Jessie Jackson Jr. appeals an order revoking his probation which was based on an admission by Jackson that he violated a condition of his probation. Based on the revocation, Jackson was sentenced to five years in prison. Although no issue was preserved for appeal, Jackson contends on various grounds that the trial court erred in revoking his probation.
Among the arguments presented by Jackson is a claim that he is entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of trial counsel that is apparent on the face of the record. The State has presented no argument in opposition to this claim. For the reasons we explain, we agree that Jackson is entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
Jackson was subject to a probation condition requiring that he “have no contact with the victim directly or indirectly, including through a third person, unless approved by the sentencing court.” Jackson’s probation officer filed an affidavit of violation, alleging that Jackson violated the no-contact condition “by being at [the victim’s] residence” on a particular date. The victim’s testimony contradicted the allegation in the affidavit. The record of the proceedings before the trial court shows that the only “contact” between Jackson and the victim occurred when the victim called Jackson to request that Jackson provide financial assistance for the victim’s child, who was fathered by Jackson. The revocation of Jackson’s probation was predicated on Jackson’s admission to that telephone contact.
Although the telephone contact which was initiated by the victim may have constituted a technical violation by Jackson of the no-contact condition, it was not a willful and substantial violation. See McCumber v. State, 682 So. 2d 1214, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Scott v. State, 485 So. 2d 40, 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In any event, the telephone contact was not alleged as a violation in the affidavit. It thus could not be a basis for revocation. See Soto v. State, 727 So. 2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Butler v. State, 450 So. 2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
Jackson’s counsel permitted Jackson to enter an admission to a violation which was uncharged and which, even if charged, would be an insufficient basis for revocation. And when Jackson’s probation was revoked, counsel neither offered a contemporaneous objection nor otherwise sought to preserve an objection. Jackson argues that he was “denied effective assistance of counsel because counsel allowed his probation to be revoked, even though the evidence was insufficient, and failed to properly preserve the issue.” As noted above, the State does not answer this argument.
We agree that counsel’s “ineffectiveness is apparent on the face of the record and [that] it would be a waste of judicial resources to require the trial court to address the issue.” Blanco v. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377, 1384 (Fla.1987). There is no plausible strategic reason for the course of action chosen by counsel. The deficiency of counsel’s performance and the resulting prejudice to Jackson are manifest. See Lambert v. State, 811 So. 2d 805, 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Holsclaw v. Smith, 822 F. 2d 1041 (11th Cir.1987); Johnson v. State, 796 So. 2d 1227, 1228-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Rios v. State, 730 So. 2d 831, 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); State v. Lopez, 107 Wash.App. 270, 27 P. 3d 237, 240-41 (2001). We therefore reverse the order revoking Jackson’s probation and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ellerbee v. State, 87 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 2012)…ective assistance of counsel bears the burden of establishing as much. Id. at 1381. Here, we are simply not presented with a case where the ineffectiveness of trial counsel, if any, is apparent from the face of the record. Compare Jackson v. State, 970 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (concluding there was ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal where complete defense to revocation of probation was available but not raised by counsel and there was “no plausible strategic reason for” counsel to a…
-
Elliott Barnett v. State, 181 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…ckson v. State, 120 So. 3d 147, 147 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DGA 2013) (indicating that a claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request an alibi instruction would be more,properly raised in a post-conviction motion), with Jackson v. State, 970 So. 2d 346, 347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that there was ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal where complete defense to revocation of probation was available but not raised by counsel and there was “no plausible strategic reason for” counsel to…
Authorities Cited
- Blanco v. Louie L. Wainwright, 507 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1987)
- Scott v. State, 485 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Rios v. State, 730 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Butler v. State, 450 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Isom v. State, 727 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Lambert v. State, 811 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Ned Poole v. State, 727 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Johnson v. State, 796 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- McCUMBER v. State, 682 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Holsclaw v. Smith, 822 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1987)