KEVIN MARCUS BOYD
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.
Appellant appeals the trial court's order modifying his probation on grounds that the State failed to prove willful violation of two probation conditions. The court affirmed the finding of willful violation regarding the financial obligation but reversed the finding regarding the employment/education requirement, holding such a condition invalid without a good faith effort exception.
The court affirmed the finding of willful violation of the financial obligation condition. However, the court reversed the finding regarding the employment/education condition, holding that such a condition is invalid as a matter of law unless it includes a good faith effort exception to account for circumstances beyond the probationer's control.
[1] A condition of probation requiring full-time employment or full-time education is invalid unless it includes a "good faith effort" exception to account for circumstances…
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“Such a provision is invalid as a matter of law unless it provides a "good faith effort" exception.”
Court explaining the legal requirement for conditions requiring specific employment or education status.
Appellant was placed on probation subject to conditions including maintaining financial obligations and maintaining either full-time employment or ful…
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
April 22, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order modifying his probation because he contends the State failed to put forward evidence that he willfully violated two conditions. We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant willfully violated his probation by ignoring his financial obligation.
However, we find the trial court erred in finding appellant willfully violated the condition of his probation requiring him to maintain either full-time employment or full-time education. Such a provision is invalid as a matter of law unless it provides a “good faith effort” exception. See Aviles v. State, 165 So. 3d 841, 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that a full-time employment condition of probation was invalid because it did not contain an exception if factors outside of the probationer’s control could prevent completion of the requirement); see also Silas v. State, 208 So. 3d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding that a condition of probation requiring a probationer to obtain a GED was invalid because it did not provide a “good faith effort” exception).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order modifying appellant’s probation but REMAND for entry of a corrected modification order. See Redd v. State, 204 So. 3d 558, 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).
WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Reynaldo Antonio Aviles v. State, 165 So. 3d 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)
- Terra Marie Redd v. State, 204 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Kwamane Quason Silas v. State, 208 So. 3d 1289 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)