Hill v. State

• Decision Date: 21 January 2020
• Docket Number: 1D18-1357,Nos. 1D18-1355,s. 1D18-1355
• Citation: 301 So.3d 1081
• Parties: Jacob Omar HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

301 So.3d 1081

Jacob Omar HILL, Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 1D18-1355

1D18-1357

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 21, 2020

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Roberts, J.

The appellant challenges the trial court's decision to revoke his probation. First, the appellant argues that the trial court erred by revoking his probation for violating condition six. Second, he argues that the State failed to present evidence that the appellant was the person on probation and that he was advised about the conditions of his probation. We only find merit in the first issue. We affirm as to the second issue without comment.

We review a trial court's factual finding that the State proved by a greater weight of the evidence that a violation of probation occurred under the competent, substantial evidence standard. Rodgers v. State , 171 So. 3d 236, 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). If there is a question about whether the proven conduct legally constitutes a violation of probation, then the trial court's legal decision is subject to de novo review. Staples v. State , 202 So. 3d 28, 32 (Fla. 2016) (holding that the question of whether a refusal to admit sexual misconduct was a violation of probation was a legal determination subject to de novo review). Finally, the trial court's ultimate decision of whether the violation was willful and substantial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id.

Condition six of the appellant's probation required him to not associate with any person engaged in criminal activity. In the affidavit alleging that the appellant had violated this condition, the probation officer alleged that the appellant was engaged in criminal activity at a particular residence. This allegation does not support a violation of condition six. See Wells v. State , 60 So. 3d 551, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (finding allegation contained in the affidavit for violation of probation that the defendant was seen holding a baby was not sufficient to find the defendant violated the condition that he was not to have unsupervised contact with children); Little v. State , 143 So. 3d 465, 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (reversing probation revocation for purchasing/possessing pseudoephedrine when the condition prohibited the probationer from taking medication containing pseudoephedrine). Because the affidavit did not allege conduct that constituted a violation of condition six, the trial court erred in finding that the appellant violated that condition.

The trial court also found that the appellant violated conditions four and five of his probation. We affirm the appellant's revocation of probation on those...