STEVEN STUART, 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.
Steven Stuart appealed the denial of his motion to modify probation conditions that prevented contact with his minor son born after his sexual offense conviction. The court granted his certiorari petition and quashed the trial court's order, holding that the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying the modification motion.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by disposing of the motion summarily without a hearing. The court must hold an evidentiary hearing on remand to allow Stuart to present evidence justifying the modification.
[1] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify probation conditions when the movant presents evidence justifying the modification, even if the State…
[2] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law by summarily denying a motion to modify probation without an evidentiary hearing.
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“We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in disposing of this motion in this summary fashion.”
Establishes that summary denial without hearing violated procedural requirements
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStuart is on probation for sexual offenses committed in 1994 involving his daughter, who is now an adult. His probation conditions prohibit all contac…
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 Sexual Offenses cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Steven Stuart appeals the denial of his motion for modification of probation; we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant the petition. See Wesner v. State, 843 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
Mr. Stuart is currently on probation for sexual offenses that occurred in 1994. His conditions of probation prevent him from having any contact with children. The victim of his earlier offenses was a daughter, who is now an adult. At the daughter’s request, the trial court previously entered an order allowing Mr. Stuart to have unsupervised contact with her. Mr. Stuart also has a son who was born shortly after the offense. He has never been allowed contact with his son, even though he maintains a relationship with his wife. He has previously attempted without success to modify his conditions of probation to allow some contact with his son.
On this occasion, Mr. Stuart filed a motion to modify his conditions of probation in January 2008. It reflects that he is now in the after-care phase of a sexual offender treatment program and that he has been having contact with his daughter for four months. It attaches letters supporting the modification from his son, his daughter, (the victim), his wife, an aunt who is willing to serve as the person providing supervision, and a grandmother who at least would like to have sufficient contact within the family for a family photograph and an occasional family dinner. The record contains a letter from a Department of Corrections’ probation specialist recognizing that the aunt has obtained “nonoffending parent” training to assist with supervised visitation.
It is undisputed that when this motion was filed, the trial court had a judicial assistant contact the State Attorney’s Office to determine whether that office objected to a modification. Upon learning that the State objected to the modification, the trial court denied the motion without a hearing.
We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in disposing of this motion in this summary fashidn. The order is quashed. On remand, the trial court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to allow Mr. Stuart to present his evidence justifying a modification.
Petition for writ of certiorari granted; order denying modification of probation quashed.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ramanand J. Dukharan v. State, 96 So. 3d 454 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…3.800(c) and denied it without a hearing. This motion, however, is actually a standard motion to modify conditions of probation, which the trial court is authorized to consider under section 948.03(2), Florida Statutes (2010). Cf. Stuart v. State, 988 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reviewing a similar circumstance by certiorari). Mr. Dukharan has filed a facially sufficient motion to modify the conditions of his probation. The trial court erred by denying the motion without conducting a hearing and providin…
-
Osborne v. State, 272 So. 3d 794 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 746 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2014)…without opinion when a trial court followed 99 Cent. See Winrr- Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Noble Management Co. & Dolgencorp, Inc., No. CI 05-CI-1874, (Fla. 9th Jud. Cir. Aug. 31, 2007), aff'd sub nom. Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 988 So. 2d 1287 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (per curiam without opinion). We are Erie-bound to give effect to the state rules of decision on the meaning and application of restrictive covenants. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in finding the terms ambiguo…
Authorities Cited
- Gadson v. State, 843 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Wesner v. State, 843 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)