RANDOLPH ALEX LAWHORN, 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.
Randolph Lawhorn challenges the revocation of his community control after being found in violation of a condition prohibiting absence from his approved residence without prior approval. The appellate court reversed because the record contained no evidence of a willful violation and the trial court explicitly found the violation was not substantial.
The court reversed the revocation because the record failed to establish that any violation was willful and the trial court explicitly did not find the lone violation to be substantial. To establish a violation of community control, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer willfully violated a substantial condition.
[1] A probationer's violation of a condition of probation must be willful to warrant revocation.
[2] To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of prob…
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“To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.”
Establishes the two-part legal standard required for any probation violation finding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLawhorn was on community control with a condition prohibiting him from being away from his approved residence without prior approval. A community cont…
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
Randolph Alex Lawhorn challenges the revocation of his community control. Because the record contains no evidence that Lawhorn willingly violated a substantial condition, we reverse.
An affidavit of violation averred that Lawhorn violated a single condition of his community control by being “away from his approved residence ... without prior approval of the [community control] officer. ...” At the subsequent hearing, the community control officer testified that she arrived at Lawhorn’s residence on December 13, 2012, at 2:34 p.m. Lawhorn was not at home. Someone at the residence, the officer did not know her identity, advised that Lawhorn had gone to the store. The officer testified that Lawhorn did have permission to be away from the residence at this time to walk his child home from school; she added that Lawhorn had permission to go the store at a later point in the day. The officer drove away from the residence on the road Lawhorn would have walked from school. She did not see him. She did not go to the store, nor did she go to the school to confirm he was not there. The community control officer was the only witness called, and she closed her testimony by stating that she never said the violation was “willful.”
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court announced:
I’m going to find that there was a violation in this case. But I’m not going to find that it was substantial in this case, only because of the information provided by [the community control officer] dur*989ing her testimony.... Now, I am finding you in violation here but I’m not going to find it to be a substantial one. Therefore, I’m going to simply reinstate you to the same terms and conditions of community control.
While “[t]he trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine whether a probationer has violated a condition of probation,” Williamson v. State, 43 So.3d 843, 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), “[t]o establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.” Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (citing Salzano v. State, 664 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Thorpe v. State, 642 So.2d 629, 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)); see also Lindsay v. State, 54 So.3d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Because the only evidence failed to establish that any violation was willful and the trial court did not find the lone violation to be substantial, the revocation must be reversed.
REVERSED.
ROBERTS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- VAN Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Ricci M. Salzano v. State, 664 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- Thorpe v. State, 642 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Monterrance Williamson v. State, 43 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Lindsay v. State, 54 So. 3d 638 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)