Buckins v. State, 4D00-2529.
| Decision Date | 18 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D00-2529.,4D00-2529. |
| Parties | Willie James BUCKINS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Susan D. Cline, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph A. Tringali, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Willie James Buckins timely appeals from an order revoking his probation for violating conditions number five and fourteen of his probation. He argues that the revocation of his probation was improper because condition number five was not set forth by the written probation order, and the state failed to prove a willful, substantial, and material violation of condition number fourteen. We agree with the latter argument, but remand only for correction of the judgment setting forth the grounds for revocation of his probation.
In 1998, Buckins pled nolo contendere to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (Count I) and battery (Count II). He was sentenced to six months in prison to be followed by one year on drug offender probation on Count I, and to eighty-five days time served on Count II. Condition number five required him to not violate any law and condition number fourteen required him to complete the next available twenty-six week batterers intervention program. Thereafter, in October, 1999, after finding that Buckins violated condition fourteen, the court extended his probation seven months to terminate in May, 2000.
On February 25, 2000, the state filed an affidavit of probation alleging that Buckins violated condition numbers five and fourteen of his probation. Specifically, the state alleged that Buckins violated condition number five by having possession of cocaine, as evidenced by a urinalysis. Although the trial court did not set forth a random urinalysis condition in the written order of probation, it is undisputed that the court had orally ordered that special condition. The state also alleged that Buckins violated condition number fourteen by failing to complete the batterers intervention program and had not provided documentation or clarity from the court as to the deletion of this program condition.
At the evidentiary hearing, Buckins stipulated that his urinalysis tested positive for cocaine. Vivian Bryant, Buckins' probation officer, testified that she instructed Buckins on the terms and conditions of his probation, including the drug offender conditions. Specifically, she told him that condition number five required him not to violate any law and that a positive drug test is an automatic violation of that condition. Buckins, in response, told her that he understood these conditions and, thereafter, submitted to monthly urinalyses before he was tested positive for cocaine.
Bryant also testified that Buckins had completed an anger management course, which was comparable to the mandated batterers intervention program, at the Comprehensive Alcoholism Rehabilitation Programs, Inc. ("CARP") treatment facility. She also forwarded to the court his request to modify his probation to allow substitution of the CARP anger management course in lieu of the batterers intervention program, and also forwarded to the court a letter from the treatment center that showed the similarity between the two courses. At the time of the probation revocation hearing, the court had not yet approved, or even had a hearing on, Buckins' request for modification. Bryant testified that she only violated him on condition number fourteen because she was already violating him on condition number five and, since the court had not yet ruled on his request for modification, he was technically in violation of condition number fourteen.
At the conclusion of trial, the court found that Buckins willfully violated condition number five by testing positive for cocaine via the urinalysis, and also condition number fourteen by failing to complete the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Filmore v. State, 2D13–1550.
...had made “reasonable attempts” to comply, but had been thwarted by lack of finances and transportation); Buckins v. State, 789 So.2d 1184, 1186 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding that a probationer's failure to attend a required program absent a showing that the failure was a product of a knowing......
-
Thompson v. State, 4D06-4196.
...may qualify as a substantive violation") (citing Robinson v. State, 702 So.2d 1346 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)); see also Buckins v. State, 789 So.2d 1184, 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (noting a defendant who tested positive for cocaine substantially and willfully violated the conditions of his probati......