Sears v. State, 4D00-2167.
| Decision Date | 19 December 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D00-2167.,4D00-2167. |
| Citation | Sears v. State, 801 So.2d 1018 (Fla. App. 2001) |
| Parties | David SEARS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Maxine Williams, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and August A. Bonavita, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of Aggravated Battery. Under the plea agreement, he was to have no contact with the two alleged minor victims and no unsupervised contact with minor children. The plea agreement further provided that the State would waive all sexual offender and sexual predator designations as well as any prosecution under the Jimmy Ryce Act. The plea agreement contained a provision that he would be subject to "mental health evaluation and treatment if necessary." In accordance with the agreement, the trial court withheld adjudication and sentenced defendant to time served plus three years probation.
In specifying the terms of defendant's probation in court, the trial court stated:
He is to be subject to, and while on probation, a mental health evaluation and treatment if he, as necessary, needs it. This is not a substance abuse or drug evaluation.
On the same day, defendant signed and dated the Probation Order which contained the following special condition:
[Y]ou must undergo a mental health evaluation at a time, date and location as specified by your probation officer, at your own expense. You must also successfully complete any treatment and education determined to be necessary as a result of the evaluation, which may include residential treatment, at your own expense.
In accord with the above, stated as Condition 17, defendant's probation officer recommended that he undergo a mental health evaluation with Mr. Auerbach, the person to whom the probation office sends probationers for mental health evaluations and sex offender treatment. Following his evaluation of defendant, Auerbach recommended that defendant receive sex offender counseling.
Later defendant filed a motion seeking a judicial determination that his sentence did not include Condition 17 and that he had successfully completed the required evaluation and treatment terms of his probation. His motion argued:
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Kaweblum v. THORNHILL ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
... ... 1st DCA), review denied, 679 So.2d 773 (Fla.1996); Barrera v. State, Dep't of Transp., 470 So.2d 750 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 480 So.2d 1293 (Fla. 1985). We ... ...
-
Facen v. State
...officer). Distinguishing between these two scenarios proves, on occasion, to be a difficult task. In this vein, in Sears v. State, 801 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), the Fourth District Court of Appeal considered whether a requirement to seek sexual offender treatment constituted an imper......