JAMES BOYER, 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 held that while the probationer violated one condition by committing a new law violation, the trial court improperly found a willful violation of another condition regarding changing residence without consent.
Mr. Boyer was found to have violated two probation conditions: one for committing a new law violation and another for changing residence without his p…
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 Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Boyer appeals the trial court’s March 18, 2009, Order revoking his probation for violation of two probation conditions. The trial court found that Mr. Boyer violated conditions two and four of his probation. Probation condition two required that Mr. Boyer not change his residence or employment or leave the county of his residence without first procuring the consent of his probation officer. Probation condition four required that Mr. Boyer live without violating any law.
We affirm without comment the trial court’s finding that Mr. Boyer violated condition four by committing a new law violation. However, we hold that the trial court improperly found that Mr. Boyer willfully violated condition two. See Williams v. State, 896 So.2d 805, 806 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Thomas v. State, 672 So.2d 587, 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Because it is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked Mr. Boyer’s probation based solely upon his violation of condition four, we affirm the revocation of Mr. Boyer’s probation. See Mata v. State, 31 So.3d 257, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (affirming revocation of probation where record was clear that trial court would have revoked probation based solely upon the counts properly proven); Jackson v. State, 807 So.2d 684, 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). However, we remand with instructions to the trial court to strike violation of condition two from the Order. See Cherington v. State, 24 So.3d 658, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Jackson v. State, 807 So.2d at 686.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with Instructions.
KAHN, ROWE, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henderson v. State, 133 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…1st DCA 2013). Because it is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked Ms. Henderson’s probation based solely on her new law violations (probation condition five), we affirm the revocation of her probation. See Boyer v. State, 39 So. 3d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Jenkins v. State, 24 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). But we remand with instructions for the trial court to strike from the order the violations relating her nonpayment of financial obligations (probation condition ten).…
Authorities Cited
- Cherington v. State, 24 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Theron Thomas v. State, 672 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Mata v. State, 31 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Williams v. State, 896 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Jackson v. State, 807 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)