Bowman v. State
| Decision Date | 25 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 1D06-4221.,1D06-4221. |
| Citation | 974 So.2d 1205 |
| Parties | Stephen BOWMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael Ufferman of the Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Charlie McCoy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
We entered an order on January 30, 2008, reversing Stephen Bowman's forty-month prison sentence along with the predicate for the sentence, an order revoking his probation. Our order also reinstated him to probation. We write to explain the basis for our decision.
In accordance with the parties' plea agreement, the original trial judge had placed Mr. Bowman on "administrative probation," specifying as a condition of probation a jail term subject, however, as "a matter of grace" to the possible substitution of time at a sheriff's work camp. Addressing appellant, she explained:
... On the Sheriff's work camp, if you don't sign up or don't qualify for any reason, even though it's no fault of your own, the punishment [i.e., condition of probation] for this is 30 days jail. It's a matter of grace that you're allowed to do the work camp instead of the jail and participate in that program.
But do you understand if, for any reason, you're unable to do the Sheriff's work camp that the intention is that you do the 30 days jail, or whatever is left of the Sheriff's work camp days?
The original trial judge thus indicated that the condition of probation could be fulfilled by jail time, work camp days, or a combination of the two. She also gave Mr. Bowman credit for two days he had already served in jail, in this way requiring him to serve twenty-eight more days, whether in jail or at the work camp.
Mr. Bowman had completed sixteen work camp days before he was dismissed from the work camp program. (The work camp program accepted medical excuses for five absences but dismissed him, apparently on account of the sheer number of absences, when he missed a sixth scheduled day.) Instead of sending him to jail to serve the twelve days that remained as a condition of his probation, an affidavit was filed alleging that he had violated a condition of his probation. A violation of probation hearing was convened before a different judge, who revoked his probation at the conclusion of the hearing, even though there was no showing that Mr. Bowman's absences violated work camp rules, much less any condition of probation.
To establish a violation of probation, the State bears the burden of proving "by a preponderance of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tasker v. State
...following violation of probation is not the proper time to assert an error in the original scoresheet." See also Bowman v. State, 974 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Importantly, section 924.06(2), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that "an appeal of an order revoking probation may review o......
-
Tasker v. State
...following violation of probation is not the proper time to assert an error in the original scoresheet." See also Bowman v. State, 974 So.2d 1205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). Importantly, section 924.06(2), Florida Statutes (2007), provides that "an appeal of an order revoking probation may review o......
- Burkhart v. State
-
David v. State
...Nevertheless, a substantial and willful violation must be established by at least a preponderance of evidence. See Bowman v. State, 974 So.2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). We agree that the State established by a preponderance of evidence that David violated condition 18 which precluded a......