DEVONTE DEVON CLARK
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Appellant's probation was revoked for violating a curfew condition by leaving home at 11:15 p.m. during the prohibited hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. The appellate court affirmed the revocation, finding the four-hour absence constituted a willful and substantial violation of probation without emergency justification.
The court affirmed the probation revocation, holding that the four-hour absence during curfew hours without emergency justification constituted a willful and substantial violation of probation. The court found the trial court's characterization of the violation as 'material' is equivalent to 'substantial' as required for revocation.
[1] A trial court's finding that a probation violation is 'material' is equivalent to and satisfies the statutory requirement to find a 'willful and substantial violation' fo…
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“Absence from the home without permission supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation of community control.”
Citation to Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla 4th DCA 1988) for the legal standard governing curfew violations.
Appellant was on probation for drug offenses with a mandatory curfew from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. He left home with his girlfriend at 11:15 p.m. to pu…
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 Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Appellant was on probation for several drug offenses and, as a condition of probation, had a curfew between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. One night when his girlfriend came home after work, they went to the store for work supplies. They left at 11:15 p.m. and were stopped by deputies at 1:40 a.m. In revoking appellant’s probation, the trial court found that he violated his probation by being out at 11:15 p.m. He argues on appeal that this was not a substantial violation of probation, but we disagree. See Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla 4th DCA 1988) (“Absence from the home without permission supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation of community control.”). In this case, unlike others, there was no emergency, and the absence was not for a short period of time. Appellant was out for almost four hours in the middle of the night. While appellant also argues that the trial court did not find that the violation was a willful and substantial violation, at the revocation hearing the trial court found the violation was willful. At sentencing the court also stated that appellant had violated probation in a “material” way. We conclude that a statement that the violation is “material” is the equivalent to stating that it is “substantial.” In the sense that “material” is used here, the dictionary defines it as “having real importance or great consequence.” Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ material (last visited October 15, 2020) (emphasis added). “Substantial” is defined as “real, true” and “important, essential.” Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial (last visited October 15, 2020) (emphasis added). As the definitions are essentially the same, the court made the necessary findings in order to revoke probation. Affirmed. WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.