Diaz v. State, 92-3641
| Decision Date | 15 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-3641,92-3641 |
| Citation | 629 So.2d 261 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2661 Miguel DIAZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We reverse the revocation of appellant's probation and remand with directions that probation be reinstated.
Pursuant to a plea agreement appellant entered a guilty plea and was placed on two years probation. One condition of probation was that appellant receive a psychological evaluation and "any treatment or counseling deemed necessary." Subsequently, the state sought to revoke appellant's probation because he would not admit to a counselor that he had committed the specific conduct underlying the criminal charges. 1 Upon hearing, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of incarceration.
When appellant's guilty plea was entered and accepted, he was not asked to admit the unlawful act charged. Rather, he was asked if he was entering the plea "in his best interest." He did admit that if there was a trial "it is possible [he] could be convicted." After being placed on probation, appellant was evaluated and attended all counseling sessions required. No specific condition of probation was imposed requiring him to admit to a counselor the specific acts charged. Under these circumstances we do not believe appellant has been proven to have violated the terms of his probation. Yancey v. State, 547 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see also and compare Haynes v. State, 571 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), with Archer v. State, 604 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
Appellant has apparently done everything that the terms of the probation order require, including participating in psychological counseling. If it is a trial court's determination that an admission of guilt to specific conduct to a counselor is necessary, then the defendant should be so advised before a plea agreement is approved. Here, the appellant did not admit his guilt to the specific conduct in plea negotiations or at any court hearing, and no term of probation requiring him to do so was imposed.
1 At the subsequent revocation hearing the counselor testified that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Warren v. Schwarz
...informed of this requirement at the time of the Alford plea. See People v. Birdsong, 937 P.2d 877 (Colo.Ct.App.1996); Diaz v. State, 629 So.2d 261 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1993); State v. Jones, 129 Idaho 471, 926 P.2d 1318 (Idaho Ct.App.1996); People v. Walters, 164 Misc.2d 986, 627 N.Y.S.2d 289 (......
-
State v. Albright
...to admit sexual misconduct to be a willful violation." Staples v. State, 202 So.3d 28, 34 (Fla. 2016) (overruling Diaz v. State, 629 So.2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993) ). Finally, the North Dakota Supreme Court decision relied upon by the Gillman court, which held that revocation of a def......
-
State v. Faraday
...admit guilt in connection with counseling or treatment required as a condition of probation, if that is the case. See Diaz v. Florida, 629 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. App. 1993). 16. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 17. Special services contracts with the sta......
-
Staples v. State
...of Appeal in Bennett v. State, 684 So.2d 242 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), Bell v. State, 643 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), and Diaz v. State, 629 So.2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve the......