Scott v. State
| Citation | 485 So.2d 40,11 Fla. L. Weekly 708 |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1171,85-1171 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 708 James Charles SCOTT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Ann N. Radabaugh, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James H. Dysart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant seeks review of an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to fifteen years' imprisonment for carnal intercourse with an unmarried person under the age of eighteen. Appellant was found to have violated a special condition of his probation which prohibited him from having "contact with his stepchildren."
The alleged violation took place when appellant and his fiancee were playing ball with her two sons at a public park. Appellant was aware that his stepdaughter frequently participated in softball games at the park. He said he searched the parking lot to make certain that his ex-wife's automobile was not there before stopping at the park. The "contact" occurred sometime later when Theresa, one of the stepdaughters, made eye contact with appellant at a distance estimated to be ninety-eight feet. She said she thought appellant had seen her, but appellant testified that he was not aware of the stepchildren's presence until informed by a deputy sheriff who had been summoned to the park by appellant's ex-wife. After being informed of the stepchildren's presence at the park and requested to leave by the deputy sheriff, appellant, along with his fiancee and her two children, left the park.
In achieving the revocation of a defendant's probation, it is incumbent upon the state to establish that the defendant willfully violated the terms of his probation. Hudson v. State, 425 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Where a defendant makes reasonable efforts to comply with probation conditions, his failure to do so may not be willful. Gardner v. State, 365 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978).
Certainly, the prohibition against appellant having contact with his stepchildren was intended to limit more than physical contact. To comply with this condition, appellant was obligated to take reasonable steps to avoid coming into their presence. Arguably, appellant was running some risk of violating probation in visiting the park. On the other hand, he should not be penalized because of an inadvertent meeting which was not precipitated by his own...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steiner v. State, 91-1826
...violated the terms of his probation where he or his mother could have mistakenly placed the call. Id. at 1167. In Scott v. State, 485 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), the Second District Court of Appeal held that the probationer did not violate a condition of his probation prohibiting him from ......
-
Jackson v. State
...was not a willful and substantial violation. See McCumber v. State, 682 So.2d 1214, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); see also Scott v. State, 485 So.2d 40, 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In any event, the telephone contact was not alleged as a violation in the affidavit. It thus could not be a basis for re......
-
Garcia v. State, 96-02556
...case indicates that appellant was making reasonable attempts to follow the instructions of his probation officer. See Scott v. State, 485 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (stating that if a probationer makes reasonable efforts to comply with a condition of probation, failure to comply will not b......
-
Thomas v. State
...not be considered willful. See Steiner, 604 So.2d at 1268; Gardner v. State, 365 So.2d 1053, 1054 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Scott v. State, 485 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). In Stevens v. State, 599 So.2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), the trial court found that the defendant violated probation by faili......