Parker v. State
Decision Date | 02 May 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 2D06-5134.,2D06-5134. |
Citation | 980 So.2d 1223 |
Parties | Charles Harold PARKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Timothy J. Ferreri, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Charles Harold Parker appeals from the order revoking his probation and from his five-year prison sentence. He argues that the violation, changing his residence without permission, was not willful or substantial because he believed that his probation had terminated before he moved. We reverse because the record does not support the finding that Parker willfully violated the terms of his probation.
On October 7, 1992, Parker entered a plea of no contest to three counts of promoting sexual performance by a child and was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. His prison sentence was suspended and he was placed on five years' probation. Parker's probation was revoked in 1994 and he was placed on one year of community control followed by three years of probation. Parker completed his community control and his supervision was changed to probation. In 1996, that probation was converted to administrative or mail-in probation, which required Parker to file a monthly written report. His probation was scheduled to expire on September 22, 1998. Parker continued to file monthly reports until November 5, 1997.
At the revocation hearing, Robert Morrison, Parker's probation officer, testified that he received information that Parker had moved from his residence on November 13, 1997. He did not hear from Parker again. Parker did not obtain prior consent to move from his residence, so Mr. Morrison filed a violation report alleging that Parker had changed his residence without permission, a violation of condition three of Parker's probation.
Parker testified that he had only completed the fifth grade. In 1984, he was hit by a car and suffered a serious head injury which kept him in a hospital for a year and in a mental hospital for three years. Parker believed that his mental problems and his limited education hindered his capacity to understand things. In 1996 when his probation was converted to an administrative or mail-in probation, he explained to the secretary at the probation office that he needed enough forms to get him through his probation period. She looked up his record and gave him what he thought was the correct number of forms to mail in for the remainder of his sentence. He diligently mailed in the forms until he had no more and then assumed that he was finished with probation. He left the state for eight and a half years, only returning when he discovered that there was a warrant out for his arrest.
Illness, including mental illness, can render a technical violation of probation "not substantial or willful because a mental or physical illness can be debilitating to the point that a probationer cannot comply with the terms of probation." Meade v. State, 799 So.2d 430, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). See Williams v. State, 728 So.2d 287, 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ( ); Copeland v. State, 864 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ( ). Parker, having a fifth-grade education and mental ailments, explained that he believed he had complied with the terms of his probation and that he was free to leave the state. He testified that he received no explanation when his probation was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carrington v. State, 2D13–2730.
...that a violation is willful and substantial.” Wharton v. State, 136 So.3d 632, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Parker v. State, 980 So.2d 1223, 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ). “While ... we review the trial court's finding of a willful and substantial violation for competent[,] substantial eviden......
-
Romine v. State
...that a violation is willful and substantial." Wharton v. State, 136 So.3d 632, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Parker v. State, 980 So.2d 1223, 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ). "While ... we review the trial court's finding of a willful and substantial violation for competent[,] substantial eviden......
-
State v. Miles, s. 09–435
...needed to make findings if it was persuaded that his statement was legally willful and posed a genuine threat. See Parker v. State, 980 So.2d 1223, 1224 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2008) (noting that mental illness can render technical violation of probation condition not substantial or willful becaus......
-
Archie v. State
...that a violation is willful and substantial." Wharton v. State, 136 So.3d 632, 634 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Parker v. State, 980 So.2d 1223, 1224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ). "On review of an order of revocation of probation, the appellate court first examines whether competent substantial evide......
-
Judgment and sentence
...and moved away. Held: The violation was not willful, due to defendant’s limited mental abilities, and VOP is reversed. Parker v. State, 980 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) When the state charges the failure to pay costs as a violation of probation, the state must present evidence of the defe......