THOMAS JOHNSON, 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.
Appellant's probation was revoked after his discharge from a court-ordered drug treatment facility for writing an inappropriate letter to someone outside the facility. The appellate court reversed the revocation, holding that the discharge did not constitute a willful violation of probation because Appellant was never informed that such conduct could result in dismissal from the program.
Appellant's discharge from the drug treatment facility did not constitute a willful violation of probation. For a probationer's failure to complete a required program to be willful, the probationer must be at fault or responsible for the dismissal, and at a minimum must be informed that dismissal is a potential sanction for the behavior at issue.
[1] A probationer's dismissal from a drug treatment program does not constitute a willful violation of probation unless the probationer was at fault or responsible for the di…
[2] For a probationer to be at fault or responsible for dismissal from a treatment program, the probationer must have been informed that dismissal was a potential sanction fo…
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“for Appellant's failure to complete the program to be a willful violation of probation, the evidence must show that he was at fault or "in some manner responsible" for his dismissal from the program”
Establishes the legal standard for willful violations of probation conditions requiring program completion
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was on probation with a condition requiring successful completion of a drug treatment program. While in the facility, Appellant wrote an uns…
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 Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges the revocation of his probation based on his discharge from a drug treatment facility for writing an inappropriate unsolicited letter to a woman outside of the facility. We reverse because Appellant’s letter and subsequent discharge from the facility did not constitute a willful and substantial violation of his probation.
Successful completion of a drug treatment program was a condition of Appellant’s probation, but, for Appellant’s failure to complete the program to be a willful violation of probation, the evidence must show that he was at fault or “in some manner responsible” for his dismissal from the program. See Rubio v. State, 824 So.2d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). The trial court has considerable discretion in determining whether a violation of probation has occurred, State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259, 262 (Fla.2002), but, for a probationer to be at fault or responsible for his dismissal, he must at least be informed that dismissal is a potential sanction for the behavior at issue. Cf. Bennett v. State, 684 So.2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding that defendant’s refusal to admit to charged offense leading to his dismissal from treatment program was not willful violation of probation because defendant had not been advised that he would have to admit to offense in order to complete probation).
Here, the treatment facility director admitted that Appellant did not violate any specific rule by sending the letter and that Appellant was never told that he could be dismissed from the program for sending letters to persons outside of the *413facility. Accordingly, although it is undisputed that Appellant sent the letter at issue (and that the letter was in poor taste), the evidence fails to establish that Appellant’s dismissal from the program for sending the letter constitutes a willful violation of his probation. Thus, the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Appellant’s probation.
For these reasons, the order revoking Appellant’s probation is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court to reinstate Appellant’s probation.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
DAVIS, LEWIS and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.G. v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…he fault of the probationer.”). “[F]or a probationer to be at fault or responsible for his dismissal [from a rehabilitation program], he must at least be informed that dismissal is a potential sanction for the behavior at issue.” Johnson v. State, 58 So. 3d 411, 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Here, D.G. does not dispute that he was advised that he needed to attend and complete anger management and substance abuse counseling as conditions of his probation. Nor does D.G. dispute that he failed to attend and compl…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)
- Bennett v. State, 684 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Rubio v. State, 824 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)