Burse v. State, 97-01834
| Decision Date | 25 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-01834,97-01834 |
| Citation | 724 So.2d 596 |
| Parties | Roderick BURSE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Douglas Chanco, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Angela D. McCravy, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Roderick Burse appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation. We affirm that portion of the trial court's order finding violations of condition (7) and the court's order prohibiting contact with the victim. However, we remand to the trial court to strike that portion of the order finding violations of condition (9).
On January 4, 1996, Burse pleaded nolo contendere to the charge of aggravated assault on a pregnant woman, and the court sentenced him to four months' imprisonment, to be followed by three years of probation. Burse's plea and probation were subject to the following conditions:
Additionally, the court issued an order prohibiting Burse from having contact with the victim. On March 27, 1997, the trial court held a hearing on violation of probation charges and found Burse to be in violation of probation conditions (7) and (9) and the court's order prohibiting contact with the victim.
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Burse violated condition (7) of his probation by admitting to his probation officer, Officer Spurlock, that he smoked marijuana. Additionally, Officer Spurlock testified that he saw Burse with the victim on two occasions and that Burse admitted to having dinner with the victim on three occasions. This testimony constituted sufficient evidence to establish that Burse had contact with the victim. Therefore, the violations of condition (7) and the court's order prohibiting contact with the victim are affirmed.
However, we conclude that Burse did not violate the provisions in probation condition (9) for failing to provide Officer Spurlock with a copy of Burse's lease and for failing to allow Officer Willis to visit his residence. A violation of probation must be willful and substantial in order to require a revocation of probation. See Wagland v. State...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee v. State
...remanded for entry of a corrected revocation order. See, e.g., Simmons v. State, 913 So.2d 19, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Burse v. State, 724 So.2d 596, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Olvey v. State, 707 So.2d 1189, 1189–90 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Bourne v. State, 869 So.2d 606, 607 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). O......
-
Arias v. State, 3D99-2065.
...willful contact with a victim after being prohibited by court order is a valid ground for revocation of probation. See Burse v. State, 724 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Pace v. State, 691 So.2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The order of probation mandated that Arias have no association in any wa......
-
Soliz v. State
...on this point. Thus, the State failed to establish that the violation of conditions 10 and 26 was willful. Cf. Burse v. State, 724 So.2d 596, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that violation of probation for failing to provide copy of lease was not willful because defendant's landlord was on ......
-
Cardenas v. State, 99-582.
...Before GERSTEN, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Glee v. State, 731 So.2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Burse v. State, 724 So.2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Pace v. State, 691 So.2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA ...