DAVID WAYNE WHITE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court must disclose the contents of a No Contact List imposed as a condition of probation to avoid creating a risk of inadvertent violations by the defendant.
[1] A trial court must disclose the complete contents of a No Contact List imposed as a condition of probation to the defendant to prevent the risk of inadvertent violations…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“expecting the Appellant to comply with a no contact order as a condition of his probation without full knowledge of the contents of that same list creates a risk of inadvertent violations”
Court's reasoning for remanding to disclose the No Contact List
David White appealed the denial of his motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and motion to correct an illega…
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 Florida Rule Of Criminal Procedure 3.850 cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 5D2023-3166 LT Case Nos. 2016-CF-016491-A 2016-CF-029694-A 2016-CF-018385-A 2017-CF-043326-A 2017-CF-034855-A
DAVID WAYNE WHITE, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
3.850 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County. Samuel Bookhardt, III, Judge.
David Wayne White, Arcadia, pro se.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
WALLIS, J.
July 31, 2026
David White (Appellant) appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and motion to correct an illegal sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 alleging five separate grounds for relief. We affirm on all five grounds but remand for the trial court to disclose the No Contact List that was referenced during Appellant's Sentencing Hearing yet never provided to the Appellant. We note that expecting the Appellant to comply with a no contact order as a condition of his probation without full knowledge of the contents of that same list creates a risk of inadvertent violations. See Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184, 1184-85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (remanding an order of no contact for clarification when it was vague and broad to the point of risking inadvertent violations).
AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED to revise condition of probation.
BOATWRIGHT and KILBANE, JJ., concur.