Rathburn v. State
| Decision Date | 28 December 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2199,76-2199 |
| Citation | 353 So.2d 902 |
| Parties | Mary Jane RATHBURN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Marc R. Goldstein, Asst. Public Defender, and Frank B. Kessler, Chief, Appellate Division, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order revoking appellant's probation. The only violation charged was that appellant had missed one of a series of scheduled meetings in a rehabilitation program in which appellant participated at the direction of her probation supervisor. We reverse.
The appellant was assigned to a program which required her attendance each day from noon until early evening and some nights. The director of the program testified that appellant attended the program on a Monday afternoon until close to 6:00 p. m., at which time he instructed her to return at 6:30 p. m. for another meeting. The appellant testified that she was told to return at 6:30 p. m., but that in written materials given her it was stated that the Monday evening meeting was a parents' meeting. Accordingly, shortly after 6:00 p. m., she telephoned her parents who advised her that they could not attend the meeting. Appellant then called the director's office and left a message with the answering service that neither she or her parents would be at the meeting. She then went home and spent the evening watching television with her parents.
Both her mother and the director confirmed the appellant's testimony about the phone calls she made. The director also confirmed the fact that a parents' meeting was scheduled for Monday evening, but he stated that the parents' meeting was at 7:30 p. m. and he had made it clear to appellant that she was to return at 6:30 p. m. The next day appellant returned for the daytime session of the program and when confronted with her absence from the the 6:30 p. m. meeting explained that she had misunderstood the instructions and that she thought that since her parents could not attend that she did not have to attend. The director advised her that he thought she had simply used her parents' absence as an excuse but that "maybe somehow or another there was a misunderstanding." He also testified that he certainly would not terminate her from the program because of the incident and he explained:
We do not terminate because there are misunderstandings or even because there are occasionally games. That is part of the rehabilitative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Humphrey v. State
...that the probationer acted in violation of the special condition of his probation. E. g., Donneil, 377 So.2d at 805; Rathburn v. State, 353 So.2d 902, 902-03 (Fla.App.1977); Nakamura, 59 Haw. at 380-83, 581 P.2d at 761-63; People v. Welch, 78 Ill.App.3d 184, 184-87, 33 Ill.Dec. 761, 762-764......
-
Clark v. State
...adhere to strict rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials, Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So.2d 607 (1947); Rathburn v. State, 353 So.2d 902 (Fla.4th DCA 1977), it is equally clear that a person's probation may not be revoked unless there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the consc......
-
Smith v. State
...there was sufficient competent evidence to show appellant's failure to report to T.A.S.C. as required. See, e. g., Rathburn v. State, 353 So.2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Combs v. State, 351 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Couch v. State, 34......
-
Oertel v. State, 4D11–221.
...a finding of a “substantial” violation must be made after “considering all of the terms of probation imposed.” Rathburn v. State, 353 So.2d 902, 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (citations omitted). “On appeal, the trial court's order is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” Davis v. Stat......