Molina v. State, No. 86-2841

CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtTHREADGILL; LEHAN, A.C.J., and PARKER
Citation520 So.2d 320,13 Fla. L. Weekly 539
Decision Date26 February 1988
Docket NumberNo. 86-2841
Parties13 Fla. L. Weekly 539 Roland MOLINA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Page 320

520 So.2d 320
13 Fla. L. Weekly 539
Roland MOLINA, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 86-2841.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Second District.
Feb. 26, 1988.

Page 321

Elizabeth L. Hapner, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Alan L. Overton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

THREADGILL, Judge.

Roland Molina appeals revocation of his probation based upon his failure to comply with instructions given by his probation officer. He argues that the violations were not willful or substantial. We agree and reverse.

In July 1986 Molina pled guilty to robbery without a weapon, a second-degree felony, and was placed on probation for fifteen years. On October 11, 1986, an affidavit was filed alleging Molina violated a condition of probation, which required him to "comply with all instructions [your probation officer] may give you," by failing to contact twenty prospective employers during a day-long job search, and by not properly documenting his time on this job search.

A second affidavit alleging the same violation was later filed, adding that Molina had been accompanied by his father on the job search, contrary to rules of the restitution center and verbal instructions of the probation officer.

At the revocation hearing, evidence before the court indicated that Molina committed the alleged offenses during his first week of probation. Molina presented a list of fifteen business establishments that he had contacted on the date in question. He testified that he made his own list of businesses contacted to comply with the instructions because some potential employers had refused to sign the list prepared by the restitution center. He further testified he had received four job offers. Molina's father, who drove him to each business location, verified that he actually visited the fifteen businesses. Molina's parents testified that they both understood from a probation officer that they were to help their son complete the probation program in any way and that the father drove him to the job sites in order to assist him.

Molina continued in the program for over two weeks before being arrested for this violation, though some temporary disciplinary measures were taken against him. During this time he had no other violations and was employed full-time by a company he had contacted during the job hunt.

After hearing the evidence, the trial judge adjudicated Molina guilty, revoked his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Savage v. State, No. 2D12–2269.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 30, 2013
    ...v. State, 823 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)); Hightower v. State, 529 So.2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (citing Molina v. State, 520 So.2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)); Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 630, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Many appellate decisions state that a revocation order is reviewed......
  • Robinson v. State, No. 95-2622
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 26, 1997
    ...was willful and substantial is a question of fact, and we will not reverse unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Molina v. State, 520 So.2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's Finally, the state conceded that the written sentence does not conform to......
  • Steiner v. State, No. 91-1826
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 9, 1992
    ...on appeal, the standard of review of an order of probation revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Molina v. State, 520 So.2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA In Stevens v. State, 599 So.2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order......
  • Mitchell v. State, No. 2D03-3787.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 7, 2004
    ...1st DCA 1996)). The standard of review of a trial court's revocation of community control is abuse of discretion. See Molina v. State, 520 So.2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA The trial court found that Mitchell violated condition 3 by changing his residence without consent. On January 4, 2003, Mitc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Savage v. State, No. 2D12–2269.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 30, 2013
    ...v. State, 823 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)); Hightower v. State, 529 So.2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (citing Molina v. State, 520 So.2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)); Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 630, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Many appellate decisions state that a revocation order is reviewed......
  • Robinson v. State, No. 95-2622
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 26, 1997
    ...was willful and substantial is a question of fact, and we will not reverse unless an abuse of discretion is shown. Molina v. State, 520 So.2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's Finally, the state conceded that the written sentence does not conform to......
  • Steiner v. State, No. 91-1826
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • September 9, 1992
    ...on appeal, the standard of review of an order of probation revocation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Molina v. State, 520 So.2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA In Stevens v. State, 599 So.2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order......
  • Mitchell v. State, No. 2D03-3787.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • May 7, 2004
    ...1st DCA 1996)). The standard of review of a trial court's revocation of community control is abuse of discretion. See Molina v. State, 520 So.2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA The trial court found that Mitchell violated condition 3 by changing his residence without consent. On January 4, 2003, Mitc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT