Harris v. State
| Decision Date | 02 December 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-03003,91-03003 |
| Citation | 610 So.2d 36 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 17 Fla. L. Week. D2717 John Timothy HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Tonja R. Vickers, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
John Timothy Harris appeals an order revoking his community control contending that the violations were not willful or substantial. We reverse.
The appellant pled guilty to delivery of cocaine. 1 At sentencing, he was classified as a habitual offender and placed on community control for two years with a condition of one year in the county jail.
After his release from jail, he was charged with two failure to report violations. The first violation occurred the day of his release when he did not immediately report to his community control officer as instructed. He was released on a Friday and did not report until the following Monday because, according to his testimony, his community control officer told him to report the following Monday if he were released after 1:00 p.m. on a Friday. The community control officer did not deny this, but testified it would have been standard procedure for the appellant to report on Friday if he were released at 1:00 p.m.
As to the second violation, the evidence showed that when the appellant telephoned the community control office at a later date to discuss his transfer to Orlando, he was told to make an appointment, which he did not do. The appellant contends that he had decided not to pursue the transfer because he had no place to live in Orlando and knew the request would be denied.
After revoking the appellant's community control, the trial court sentenced him to thirty years in prison as a habitual offender. The guidelines recommendation was five and a half to twelve years in prison.
A violation which triggers a revocation of probation must be willful and substantial. Hightower v. State, 529 So.2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Although a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a term of probation has been violated, the greater weight of the evidence in this case does not support the court's determination that the appellant's actions were willful and substantial. See id.
The appellant made a reasonable attempt to comply with the conditions of community...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hill
...Garcia v. State, 701 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. App. 1997); Sanders v. State, 675 So. 2d 665, 665-66 (Fla. App. 1996); Harris v. State, 610 So. 2d 36, 37 (Fla. App. 1992); Donneil v. State, 377 So. 2d 805 (Fla. App. 1979). The holding of those cases, however, ultimately can be traced to Florida ......
-
Van Wagner v. State, 95-1375
...car broke down). A "trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a term of probation has been violated...." Harris v. State, 610 So.2d 36, 37 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). "The standard of review for probation revocation orders is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Steiner v. Sta......
-
State v. Carter
...has been demonstrated by the greater weight of the evidence. See Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Harris v. State, 610 So.2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). The trial court in this case weighed the evidence and determined that Carter's conduct warranted On appeal from the tria......
-
Parker v. State
...has been demonstrated by the greater weight of the evidence. See Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Harris v. State, 610 So.2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). Id. at 261-62. As suggested by the citation to the First and Second District decisions, our repeated reference to the "g......