KEVIN LEE BOYINGTON, 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.
Kevin Boyington appeals the revocation of his community control based solely on the allegation that he changed his address without permission. The court reverses, holding that a probationer cannot be revoked for a violation beyond his control, particularly when he was incarcerated at the time of the alleged violation.
The court reversed the revocation order, holding that a probationer should not be revoked for a violation that was beyond his control, particularly when he was incarcerated during the relevant time period. A willful or substantial violation is required for revocation.
[1] A trial court errs in revoking community control solely based on an allegation of changing residence without permission when the defendant was incarcerated and unable to…
[2] A violation of community control must be willful or substantial to warrant 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“the trial court erred in revoking his community control where there was no showing of a willful or substantial violation”
Establishes the legal standard that a willful or substantial violation is required for revocation of community control.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoyington was placed on community control. On February 5, 2010, he left Escambia County and entered Alabama, where he was arrested for theft and incar…
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, Kevin Boyington, seeks review of the trial court’s order of revocation of community control. He argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred in revoking his community control solely based upon the allegation that he changed his address without permission. We agree and reverse.
The State filed a violation of community control affidavit alleging the following three grounds: (1) the appellant changed his residence without permission; (2) the appellant left his county of residence without permission; and (3) the appellant committed a new criminal offense. All three allegations arose from the appellant’s leaving Escambia County on February 5, 2010, and entering Alabama, at which time he was arrested and incarcerated for theft.
At the violation of community control hearing, the State advised the trial court that it would not be going forward on allegations (2) and (3) and would only be proceeding on allegation (1), changing residence without permission. The evidence at the hearing established that the appellant was arrested in Alabama on February 5, 2010, and remained in jail from that date through the date of the violation hearing. Nonetheless, the trial court found the appellant guilty of “that portion of Allegation *632(1), which alleged that he changed his residence without the consent of a probation officer,” revoked community control, and sentenced him to 30 months in state prison.
On appeal, the appellant argues, and the State concedes, that the trial court erred in revoking his community control where there was no showing of a willful or substantial violation. See Burgin v. State, 623 So.2d 575, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In light of the evidence showing that the appellant was incarcerated from the time of his arrest to the date of his hearing, we agree that the appellant should not have been revoked for something that was beyond his control. See e.g., Frazier v. State, 587 So.2d 660, 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (finding probationer’s failure to report to probation office non-willful where he was incarcerated at the time); Smith v. State, 711 So.2d 100, 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (finding the appellant’s failure to file monthly reports after his arrest did not constitute a willful offense).
We REVERSE the order revoking the appellant’s community control and REMAND for reinstatement of supervision.
DAVIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lovett v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…val. See Marchan v. State, 192 So. 3d 658, 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“[W]here a defendant is physically prevented from complying [with the terms of his probation] due to incarceration . . . the failure to comply is not willful.”); Boyington v. State, 70 So. 3d 631, 631-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding probationer’s change of address without prior permission was not willful where the probationer’s change of address was the result of his arrest and incarceration in another jurisdiction). We reverse the judgment…
-
Lovett v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…val. See Marchan v. State, 192 So. 3d 658, 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“[W]here a defendant is physically prevented from complying [with the terms of his probation] due to incarceration . . . the failure to comply is not willful.”); Boyington v. State, 70 So. 3d 631, 631-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (holding probationer’s change of address without prior permission was not willful where the probationer’s change of address was the result of his arrest and incarceration in another jurisdiction). We reverse the judgment…
Authorities Cited
- Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Frazier v. State, 587 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Smith v. State, 711 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)