BOBBY JEROME CARTER, 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.
The court affirmed the revocation of a registered sex offender's probation for violating a condition prohibiting unsupervised contact with minors, but remanded for entry of a written order specifying the violated conditions.
A probation violation is affirmed when evidence supports the trial court's finding that the offender willfully and substantially violated a condition prohibiting contact with minors without an approved adult supervisor.
[1] A probation condition prohibiting a registered sex offender from contact with minors without an approved adult supervisor is violated when the offender is found in the pr…
Previewing 1 of 1 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 determination of whether a violation of probation is willful and substantial is a question of fact and will not be overturned on appeal unless the record shows that there is no evidence to support it.”
Standard of review for probation violation findings, citing Riggins v. State, 830 So. 2d 920, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Carter, a registered sex offender, was placed on probation with a condition prohibiting contact with minors without an approved adult present. A proba…
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 Standard Of Review For Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s revocation of appellant’s probation and sentence to thirty months in prison following a violation of probation hearing. A condition of the probation of the appellant, a registered sex offender, prohibited contact with minors without the presence of an adult who had been advised of appellant’s crime and was approved by the sentencing court. Appellant’s probation officer found him in the presence of his girlfriend’s minor children upon inspection of his residence, and the girlfriend had not been approved for supervision by the sentencing court. “The determination of whether a violation of probation is willful and substantial is a question of fact and will not be overturned *1002on appeal unless the record shows that there is no evidence to support it.” Riggins v. State, 830 So.2d 920, 921 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). As there was evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion, we affirm.
We remand, however, for the court to enter a written order listing the specific conditions which were violated. See Turner v. State, 963 So.2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Peterson v. State, 962 So.2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Watts v. State, 688 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
GROSS, C.J., and CIKLIN, J„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Watts v. State, 688 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Riggins v. State, 830 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Vinson Peterson v. State, 962 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Miralla v. Wilfredo Rodriguez, 963 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)