JOEL WAYNE DONNEIL, A/K/A JOEL WAYNE DONNELL, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court reversed the trial court's revocation of probation, holding that a defendant cannot be found to have violated probation merely because he was determined not to be a proper candidate for probation. The court reaffirmed that probation violations require a willful departure from the terms of probation, not an assessment of the defendant's suitability for probation.
Probation may not be violated on the ground that the defendant was not a proper candidate for probation. Probation violations must be based on a willful departure from the terms of probation, and the trial court's finding that the defendant was not a proper candidate for probation does not constitute a valid basis for revocation.
[1] A defendant cannot be found to have violated probation based solely on the ground that they were not a proper candidate for probation under a special condition, especiall…
[2] Probation may not be violated except for a willful departure from its terms.
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“whether a defendant having been placed on probation, with a condition of probation inserted at the urging of his counsel, may thereafter be held to have violated his probation upon the sole ground that he was not a proper candidate for probation under the special condition. We hold that probation may not be violated on such a ground and reverse.”
States the core issue and the court's holding that a defendant cannot be found in violation of probation based solely on lack of suitability for probation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDonneil was represented as having limited mental capacity but capable of committing the crime charged. At his counsel's urging, the trial court grante…
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 Special Conditions Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
These consolidated appeals raise a single issue; that is, whether a defendant having been placed on probation, with a condition of probation inserted at the urging of his counsel, may thereafter be held to have violated his probation upon the sole ground that he was not a proper candidate for probation under the special condition. We hold that probation may not be violated on such a ground and reverse.
Briefly, the facts are that the defendant was represented to the trial court as being of limited mental capacity, yet capable of the commission of the crime with which he was charged. At the urging of defendant’s counsel, probation was granted on a representation that it would be to the best interest of both the defendant and the State that the defendant complete a drug rehabilitation program. He did not complete the program and, upon the filing of an affidavit of violation of probation on that basis, the trial court found as follows (strikeouts included):
“It further appearing that the aforesaid has not properly conducted himself, but has violated the-conditions of h_ probation in a material respect by and has been found not to be a proper candidate for probation.”
This is an unfortunate situation to which the framework of the law does not provide an adequate remedy, and we must adhere to the established rule that probation may not be violated except for a willful departure from the terms thereof. Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Page v. State, 363 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); and Barber v. State, 344 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Accordingly, the order vacating the defendant’s probation and sentence are re [*DCCCLXXXVI] versed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to place the defendant on probation under the original terms of the order. Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williamson v. State, 388 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…e appellant points out that when the plea was taken the postponed surrender was expressly stated not to be a special condition of probation, but rather of the plea. See, Morgan v. State, 341 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); see also, Donneil v. State, 377 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Sutton v. State, 348 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We agree with the factual premises of the appellant’s argument but not with his conclusion. Since Williamson’s probationary term, which was to follow his year in jail, had not y…
-
Hilton v. State, 469 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…monthly reports on time was a substantial violation of his probation. See Hudson v. State, 425 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Davidson v. State, 419 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Shaw v. State, 391 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Donneil v. State, 377 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The defendant’s probation officer testified only that had he been in his office when defendant came to file the current and the two previous monthly reports, he did not know if he would have accepted the previous reports as timel…
-
Itapura Cardoso v. State, 421 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ate, 400 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ordonez v. State, 408 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Postell v. State, 383 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Owens v. State, 354 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The appellant relied heavily on Donneil v. State 377 So. 2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) as controlling the instant case. We do not agree. It is clear from the Donneil case that the defendant was of limited capacity and was not able to comprehend the program to which he was assigned as a special condition of probation…
Authorities Cited
- Page v. State, 363 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Barber v. State, 344 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)