Goley v. State, 90-2237
| Decision Date | 08 August 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2237,90-2237 |
| Citation | 584 So.2d 139 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D2097 Brian Paul GOLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kenneth Witts, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Judy Taylor Rush, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Brian Paul Goley appeals an order revoking the probation originally imposed upon him on August 21, 1989, pursuant to his plea of guilty to two counts of sexual offenses upon a child over the age of twelve but under the age of eighteen years. The circuit court found that he was guilty of a violation of condition eight which stated:
You will promptly and truthfully answer all inquiries directed to you by the court or the probation officer, and allow the officer to visit your home, at your employment site or elsewhere, and you will comply with all instructions he may give you.
The court revoked the ten-year period of probation and sentenced Goley to twelve years in the Department of Corrections. We reverse.
Form DC4-924 (11/82) is used by a probationer to request special authorization for a trip and by the Department of Corrections (DOC) to show approval of the request and to give any special instructions relative to the trip. Goley had applied for and had been granted authorization to travel to Tampa on December 9, 1989, so that he could accompany his wife on a shopping trip. One of the written instructions was to report to his probation officer by phone on the first working day after he returned. Goley complied with the instructions.
On June 15, 1990, Goley again applied for authorization to travel. He wished to go to Tampa on Saturday, June 23, 1990, this time to pick up his daughter who was arriving at the Tampa airport and who intended to reside in Florida. A travel permit was especially important since one of the conditions of probation was that there was to be no contact between Goley and his daughter without supervision by Goley's wife or a representative from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The probation officer made written special entries on the form, indicating that Goley's wife was to accompany him on the trip, that he was to abide by all conditions of probation, that he was to report any contact with law enforcement officials, and that there would be no overnight stay on the one-day trip. The probation officer testified that she additionally orally instructed Goley to report back to her no later than Monday, June 25, 1990, and inform her of where his daughter would be residing.
On June 26, 1990, Goley and his wife again appeared before the probation officer and inquired about authorization for another trip. When Goley volunteered nothing about the report due the day prior, the probation officer inquired. Goley responded that the daughter would be residing with her sister during the evening hours and with her mother during the day. The probation officer then advised him that he had violated the conditions of his probation by not reporting the previous day as specifically instructed on June 15, 1990.
Goley testified that he understood the oral instruction to be that he was to report the following week after picking up his daughter to inform the officer of the living arrangements. Goley...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathis v. State, 95-2789
...officer has the authority to give routine supervisory instructions in order to implement the conditions of probation. Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Hutchinson v. State, 428 So.2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, when the supervisory instruction is premised on an invalid......
-
Junk v. State
..." ‘a complete indifference to compliance with [the] conditions of probation.’ " Brown, 776 So.2d at 330 (quoting Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139, 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) ). On the facts presented, we need not evaluate separately whether Appellant's failure to report during the two months befo......
-
Roff v. State, 93-3199
...to follow supervisory instructions given by his probation officer was a proper ground for revocation of probation. Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139, 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Haynes v. State, 440 So.2d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Grimsley v. State, 408 So.2d 1075, 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). App......
-
Cruz v. State , 4D10–5267.
...the trial court's discretion.” Lopez v. State, 722 So.2d 936, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (internal citation omitted). In Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), after complying with prior instructions from his probation officer, Goley applied for authorization to travel. Id. at 140.......