Alston v. State
| Citation | 646 So.2d 184 |
| Decision Date | 03 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 82571,82571 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly S556 Kenny ALSTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Valerie Jonas and Louis Campbell, Asst. Public Defenders, Miami, for petitioner.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Linda S. Katz, Asst. Atty. Gen., Miami, for respondent.
We have for review Alston v. State, 623 So.2d 1226 (Fla.3d DCA 1993), which expressly and directly conflicts with the opinion in Jones v. State, 348 So.2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(3), Fla. Const.
Several weeks after Alston received a community control sentence, a community control officer observed him standing on a street corner on a day that his log sheet indicated he should have been working. The officer required Alston to report to the probation office, where he was subjected to a drug test. Alston tested positive for cocaine use and, subsequently, was charged with violating several community control conditions.
The trial court found that Alston violated the community control conditions requiring that he work diligently and that he not use intoxicants to excess. Accordingly, the court revoked his community control and sentenced him to five years in prison. The district court struck the finding that Alston failed to work diligently but held that the positive drug test sufficiently demonstrated that Alston violated the remaining condition. In reaching this conclusion, the court also noted that cocaine constitutes an intoxicant for purposes of probation violation cases.
We agree with the district court's conclusion that cocaine is an intoxicant for purposes of the excessive-use condition. Alston asserts that the term "intoxicant" as used in the condition only applies to alcohol, but this interpretation ignores the modern trend to categorize both drugs and alcohol as intoxicants. Additionally, Alston's interpretation fails to account for past decisions that have classified cocaine, 1 marijuana, 2 and even transmission fluid 3 as intoxicants within the meaning of this condition.
Alston, however, correctly asserts that his use of cocaine, as evidenced by a single drug test, did not violate the community control condition requiring him to refrain from using intoxicants to excess. The plain language of the condition indicates that only "excessive" use of an intoxicant is prohibited. We do not believe a single positive drug test, without more, is sufficient evidence to find a violation of this particular community control condition. Rather, this case requires a result consistent with Jones v. State, 348 So.2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), because the conduct established does not appear to be that which the excessive use condition was intended to proscribe.
We do note, however, that a positive drug test for cocaine violates the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...during a single occasion—the visit by his probation officer—was insufficient to prove a violation of this condition. Appellant relies on Alstonv. State , 646 So.2d 184 (Fla. 1994), to support this assertion. However, we find his reliance is misplaced.In Alston , a community control officer ......
-
Blackshear v. State
...condition one by failing to submit monthly reports to his probation officer. However, in accordance with the dictates of Alston v. State, 646 So.2d 184 (Fla.1994), we must reverse as to condition six for a lack of sufficient evidence of excessive intoxicant use or visiting a place that into......
-
Smith v. State
...argument, Smith accurately notes that the record reflects that Smith used intoxicants on probation only once. Citing to Alston v. State, 646 So.2d 184 (Fla.1994), and its progeny,1 Smith argues that a single use of intoxicants does not constitute a violation of probation. We distinguish the......
-
Ross v. State, 96-02920
...using intoxicants to excess, was not shown since evidence of one positive drug test does not amount to excessive use. See Alston v. State, 646 So.2d 184 (Fla.1994). Although appellant admitted to the community control officer that he had smoked marijuana once, this singular use does not est......