C.C., A CHILD, 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.
C.C., a juvenile defendant, appealed a final order reinstating his probation after the trial court found he violated five probation conditions. The appellate court found insufficient evidence for three of the alleged violations but upheld findings for two violations, requiring remand for resentencing consideration.
The evidence was insufficient to prove three violations (failure to attend school, failure to reside in mother's home, and failure to cooperate with probation officer), but legally sufficient to establish two violations (marijuana possession and curfew violation). The trial court's Richardson hearing was adequate.
[1] A violation of a condition of probation must be willful and substantial to trigger revocation.
[2] The State must prove a violation of probation by the greater weight of the evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 a violation of a condition of probation to trigger a revocation, the violation must be willful and substantial, and the State must prove it by the greater weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for probation violations that must be satisfied by the State.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.C. was on probation with conditions including school attendance, residing in his mother's home, maintaining contact with his probation officer, and …
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
C.C. (“Defendant”) appeals a final order reinstating his probation following a finding of violations of its terms. The record reflects that the trial court found Defendant committed all five of the alleged violations. For a violation of a condition of probation to trigger a revocation, the viola*446tion must be willful and substantial, and the State must prove it by the greater weight of the evidence. See Martoral v. State, 946 So.2d 1240, 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). We review trial court decisions on violations of probation under an abuse of discretion standard. Matthews v. State, 736 So.2d 72, 75 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Based on our review of the instant record, we find the evidence was insufficient to show that Defendant substantially and willfully violated the following alleged conditions of his probation: (1) failure to attend school; (2) failure to reside in his mother’s home; and (3) failure to cooperate fully and maintain contact with his probation officer. The evidence was legally sufficient to establish the remaining two violations — possession of marijuana and violation of curfew.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for the lower court to consider whether the same sentence would be imposed based on the two proven violations and to enter a written order specifying the same. Robinson v. State, 74 So.3d 570, 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Lastly, we are not persuaded by Defendant’s contention that the lower court failed to hold an adequate Richardson1 hearing.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
STEVENSON, CIKLIN and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richardson v. State, 246 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1971)
- Mulder v. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 946 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Robinson v. State, 74 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)
- Matthews v. State, 736 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)