STEVEN HARRIS ALMOND, 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.
Steven Harris Almond appeals his conviction for aggravated assault, challenging the terms of his seven-year probation sentence. The court affirmed the conviction but struck one probation condition as insufficiently definite and excessive in duration, and remanded for modification.
The court affirmed the conviction but found the seven-year probation term exceeded the maximum allowed by two years and struck condition (10) requiring residence outside Central Florida as insufficiently definite and lacking reasonable relationship to probation purposes. The other conditions were upheld.
[1] A condition of probation must be sufficiently definite to advise the probationer of the limits of the restriction.
[2] A condition of probation must bear some reasonable relationship to the purposes of probation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The terms of probation exceeds the maximum allowed by two years.”
Establishes that the seven-year probation term was excessive under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was convicted by jury of aggravated assault. The trial court imposed seven years of probation with conditions including: serving 51 weeks in…
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Appellant appeals from a Judgment of guilty and Order of Probation after a trial by jury in which Appellant was convicted of aggravated assault.
The trial court ordered Appellant to serve seven years of probation and included in the terms thereof the following conditions: “(9) You will serve fifty-one weeks in Orange County Jail with credit for time served. (10)You will reside elsewhere other than Central Florida. (II) You will not violate any State or Federal laws, County or Municipal Ordinances. (12)You will not associate with any organized or unorganized motorcycle groups.” The terms of probation exceeds the maximum allowed by two years. See Holmes v. State, 343 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), and Heatherly v. State, 343 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Additionally, Appellant contends and we agree that condition (10) is improper. The requirement that Appellant reside elsewhere than Central Florida is not sufficiently definite to advise Appellant of the limits of the restriction; also it is not clear what relationship this restriction has to Appellant’s probation.
The trial court in the exercise of its discretion may as a condition of probation say where a probationer may reside. The condition, however, must be sufficiently definite to advise the probationer of the limits of the restriction, and the condition must also bear some reasonable relationship to the purposes of probation. Condition (10) does not meet these criteria and is hereby stricken from the Order of Probation. Upon remand, the trial court may amend the Order of Probation consistent with this opinion. In all other respects the Judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED as modified and remanded. ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur. MILLER, ROBERT P., Associate Judge, concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.
MILLER, ROBERT P., Associate Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part, with opinion.
I disagree with that portion of this opinion which infers that the conditions as set forth in the Order of Probation must affirmatively show some relationship to the Appellant’s probation and I presume rehabilitation. I believe the better rule is that previously stated by this court in Heatherly v. State, 343 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), wherein Judge Dauksch pronounces the rule to be that where the record is silent as to the trial court’s reason for particular conditions this court cannot find that the court abused its discretion in that regard.
The record here is certainly silent as to why the court imposed such a geographical restriction and it should be presumed that the trial court had an appropriate reason for such restriction. Certainly the trial court had authority to restrict the Appellant’s movements entirely by placing him in confinement. It is only by the grace of the trial court that he is allowed any movement whatsoever and therefore he should not be heard to complain of such restriction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bentley v. State, 411 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…rehabilitation, by forcing him into a pattern, or habit, of conduct less likely to lead him to violate the law. . See, e.g., Grubbs v. State, 373 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1979). . Dearth v. State, 390 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). .See Almond v. State, 350 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Coulson v. State, 342 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Russell v. State, 342 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Kominskey v. State, 330 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). .The ejusdem generis rule. . See generally 26 Fla.Jur. Publ…
-
Shaddix v. State, 599 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…find error in several respects. The form language of Condition (12) is inconsistent with the prior order, requiring clarification on remand so Shad-dix will know exactly what he must do or refrain from doing while on probation. See Almond v. State, 350 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), cert. den., 358 So. 2d 128 (Fla.1978). The amount of restitution, if any, must be determined by the trial court pursuant to section 948.03(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1989), and this purely judicial function may not be delegated to…
-
Gardner v. State, 365 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…iolation of his probation because he had not gone to Missouri and because he was in possession of a .22 caliber rifle. A condition of probation must be sufficiently definite to advise the defendant of the limits of the restriction. Almond v. State, 350 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). A condition which is so vague that the defendant cannot reasonably know what lawful acts he is prohibited from doing is invalid. A person on probation is still entitled to some but not all of the traditional rights of due proces…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Heatherly v. State, 343 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Holmes v. State, 343 So. 2d 632 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)