JONATHAN ISAIAH MILLER, 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.
Jonathan Miller appeals the revocation of his probation for tampering with a witness and his four-year prison sentence. The appellate court finds that the trial court erred in finding a violation of a community service condition because sufficient time remained to complete the hours, but affirms the revocation based on two proven new law violations.
The trial court erred in finding Miller violated the community service condition because the condition contained no beginning and ending date, and with approximately nine months remaining in his probation term, sufficient time existed for him to complete the hours at the required rate. However, the probation revocation is affirmed because the trial court would have revoked probation based on two proven new law violations.
[1] A probationer cannot be found in willful and substantial violation of a community service requirement when sufficient time remains to complete the hours at the specified…
[2] A probation revocation order may be affirmed even if based in part on an erroneous finding, if other proven violations independently support the revocation.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“when there is sufficient time remaining for the probationer to complete the required hours at the required rate, the State cannot prove a willful and substantial violation”
Establishes the legal standard for probation violations involving time-based conditions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller began an eighteen-month probation term in August 2014. His probation required him to complete 25 hours of community service at a rate of 5 per …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
Jonathan Miller appeals the revocation of his probation for the offense of tampering with a witness and his resulting four-year prison sentence. He challenges the revocation of his probation on two bases. We find no merit in his first argument, but we agree with his second. We affirm the revocation of his probation and his sentence but remand for the trial court to strike the violation of special condition eight from the revocation order.
Special condition eight of Miller’s probation required him to “successfully complete 25 hours of community service at a rate of 5/month.” Miller began serving his eighteen-month probation term in August 2014. The affidavit of violation was filed approximately five months later in January 2015. The violation of probation hearing was held on May 11 and 13, 2015, approximately halfway through the probation term. The trial court found that Miller violated this condition of probation because “there was a minimum monthly requirement” that he was required to complete, giving “him a de facto beginning and end.”
Miller argues that the trial court erred in finding him in violation of special condition eight of his probation because the order of probation did not specify a time period within which he was required to complete his twenty-five hours of community service. This court has held that a similarly worded condition does not contain “a beginning and ending date for completing the hours” and that “when there is sufficient time remaining for the probationer to complete the required hours at the required rate,” the State cannot prove a willful and substantial violation. Bryant v. State, 931 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see, e.g., Dean v. State, 948 So.2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Pollard v. State, 930 So.2d 854, 855-56 (Fla. 2d DCA *9492006); Shipman v. State, 903 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
Because Miller had approximately nine months left to complete his community service hours of twenty-five hours at a rate of five per month, the trial court erred in finding Miller in violation of special condition eight of his probation. However, we affirm the revocation of Miller’s probation because it is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked Miller’s probation based on the two new law violations proven at the hearing. See Pollard, 930 So.2d at 856. We remand for the trial court to strike special condition eight from the order of revocation.
Affirmed; remanded.
CASANUEVA and SALARIO, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shipman v. State, 903 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Jamarius Pollard v. State, 930 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Dean v. State, 948 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Brown v. Nelda Jane Brown, 931 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Bryant v. State, 931 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)