Brown v. State, 2D01-285.
| Citation | 813 So.2d 202 |
| Decision Date | 03 April 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D01-285.,2D01-285. |
| Parties | Tamika BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann S. Weiner, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
We reverse the order revoking Tamika Brown's community control because the State failed to prove willful and substantial violations of community control conditions twelve and twenty-seven. The trial court found that Brown had violated community control condition twelve by being away from her approved residence and condition twenty-seven by failing to complete community service hours.
After being advised by Ms. Natalie Harris that Brown was "coming to her house and harassing her, as well as her family, at all hours of the night," the corrections officer who supervised Brown arranged to visit her residence at 2 a.m. on October 7, 2000. The officer was accompanied by a Hillsborough County deputy. Upon arriving at Brown's home, the officer knocked on the door, but no one answered. She then knocked using her flashlight, and again, no one answered. There were no lights on, but they both could hear a television playing inside the house. They left after waiting at the door for three to four minutes.
Four days later, Brown reported to the Department of Probation and Corrections for her weekly visit. At that time, she was taken into custody for, among other things, failing to be at her approved residence for the 2 a.m. visit.
At the violation hearing, Brown and her parents testified that the entire family, including Brown, was at home sleeping at 2 a.m. on October 7, 2000. Brown's father testified that the knocking was probably drowned out by the noise of the television and an air conditioning unit. Other than testimony from the officer and deputy establishing that no one answered the door, the State produced no evidence to prove that Brown was not at home.
The affidavit of community control violation also alleged that Brown had violated community control condition twenty-seven by failing to complete required community service hours. Brown had been instructed to complete ten hours of community service each month. She was assigned to complete service hours at Keeney United Methodist Church but asked to be reassigned because there was insufficient staff at the church to direct her. The officer admitted that even she had difficulty communicating with church staff. Consequently, on September 27, 2000, she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rousey v. State
...State, 190 So.3d 210, 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ; see also Robinson v. State, 907 So.2d 1284, 1286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ; Brown v. State, 813 So.2d 202, 203–04 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). This court has consistently held that a violation of supervision is willful only where the defendant fails to make r......
-
Robaldo v. State, Case No. 2D02-4021 (FL 7/30/2004), Case No. 2D02-4021.
...the defendant's violations were willful and substantial." Davis v. State, 867 So. 2d 608, 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Brown v. State, 813 So. 2d 202, 203-04 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The State has the burden of proving by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant's actions amounted to a w......
-
Hurst v. State, 1D06-1230.
...see also Bell v. State, 643 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Appellant relies upon the Second District's opinion in Brown v. State, 813 So.2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), as support for the proposition that, in proving a willful violation of probation, the State must allege something more tha......
-
Kegler v. State
...the trial court found Brown in willful and substantial violation of his community control. Id. Relying on [Tamika] Brown v. State, 813 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), this court determined that the State's evidence was legally insufficient when it presented testimony "that no one answered th......