Murvin v. State, 87-00944
| Decision Date | 21 April 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-00944,87-00944 |
| Citation | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1012,541 So.2d 1344 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1012 Cornelius MURVIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and D.P. Chanco, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Donna A. Provonsha, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant pled guilty to four counts of attempted sexual battery on persons less than twelve years of age and to one count of lewd, lascivious or indecent assault on a child under sixteen, and was placed on probation for twelve years. Condition (20) of appellant's probation is that he have "[n]o contact with victims, direct or indirect without written permission from Probation Officer." Subsequently, appellant's probation was revoked and he was sentenced to concurrent twelve-year sentences from which he appeals.
Appellant was charged with two violations of probation as follows:
[P]robationer had contact with LaDean Gullette. In that on 6/14/86, at 2:30 a.m., he called her at her place of work. Further violated this condition on 6/24/86, approx. 9:20 p.m. by sitting in a car in front of her house and calling to her. These technical violations took place in Hillsborough County.
[T]hat as of 3/25/87, probationer's Probation Officer, James Burke, has not received Written Monthly Reports for the months of September, October, November, December, 1986 and January, February, 1987.
At the revocation hearing, LaDean Gullette, the victims' mother, testified to the first violation alleged above. The problem was that appellant's contact was with the victims' mother and not the victims themselves. The state argues that the encounter at the house was indirect contact because the victims could have seen appellant if they had looked out of the house. However, the judge ruled on this violation as follows: (T 20). Although the order of revocation of probation recites this as one of the two grounds for revocation, it is contrary to the finding of the trial judge in open court, and that portion of the order must be stricken.
The sole remaining ground for revocation was for failure to file written monthly reports in the months specified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jordan v. State, 91-3609
...testimony that he was not certain whether he had informed appellant that her cost obligation had been reinstated. Murvin v. State, 541 So.2d 1344, 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (the court concluded that there was "at the least, confusion over whether appellant was to continue filing written repor......
-
Edwards v. State, 89-1374
...substantial nor did sufficient evidence exist of willfulness. Cf. Grant v. State, 461 So.2d 1375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Murvin v. State, 541 So.2d 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). He claims that his assertion of gainful employment by Radio Shack in his monthly report was truthful, and that his first ......
-
Burse v. State, 97-01834
...where there is confusion over a duty established by a condition of probation, any violation is not willful. See Murvin v. State, 541 So.2d 1344, 1345 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Burse did not allow Officer Willis to enter his residence because Burse interpreted condition (9)'s statement that "[y]ou......