Spano v. State , 4D09–2993.
| Decision Date | 04 May 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D09–2993.,4D09–2993. |
| Citation | 60 So.3d 1108 |
| Parties | Rose SPANO, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Anthony Calvello, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laura Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.GROSS, C.J.
We reverse a portion of appellant's sentence because a special condition of probation preventing a mother from having any contact with her daughter was an abuse of discretion under the facts of this case.
Rose Spano entered pleas of guilty to two counts of practicing law after she had been suspended from the practice in violation of section 454.31, Florida Statutes (2008). She was placed on one year of community control followed by three years of probation. In March, 2009, after admitting a material violation of community control, she was again placed on one year of community control followed by three years of probation.
One of the conditions of community control was that Spano remain confined to her residence except for 30 minutes before and after approved employment, community service work, or any other activities approved by the community control officer. In June, 2009 the officer filed an affidavit of violation; the crux of the charge was that Spano had requested that she be allowed to visit her daughter, her supervising officer said no, but Spano visited her daughter anyway.
Spano and her daughter had a difficult relationship. At one point, there was no contact between them because the daughter had obtained a restraining order against Spano. After hearing evidence, the trial court ruled that Spano had committed a willful and substantial violation of her community control. 1 The court again withheld adjudication of guilt and sentenced Spano to one year of community control followed by three years of probation. As a special condition, the court ordered that Spano have no direct or indirect contact with her daughter. Spano filed a motion to correct a sentencing error challenging the imposition of the special condition, but the trial court did not rule on it, so it is deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B).
The trial court abused its discretion in imposing a special condition that Spano have no contact with her daughter. See Williams v. State, 879 So.2d 49, 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (). The discretion to impose a special condition of probation or community control “is not unbridled.” Kominsky v. State, 330 So.2d 800, 801 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). Thus,
[i]n determining whether a [special] condition of probation is reasonably related to rehabilitation, we believe that a condition is invalid if it (1) has no relationship to the crime of which the offender was convicted, (2) relates to conduct which is not in itself criminal, and (3) requires or forbids conduct which is not reasonably related to future criminality.
Rodriguez v. State, 378 So.2d 7, 9–10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (citations omitted), approved, Biller v. State, 618 So.2d 734, 734–35 (Fla.1993); see Zeigler v. State, 647 So.2d 272, 273–74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The rationale behind these limitations is that “[a] special condition of probation cannot be imposed if it is so punitive as to be unrelated to rehabilitation.” Williams v. State, 474 So.2d 1260, 1260 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (citing Kominsky, 330 So.2d at 801–02).
If at least one of the Rodriguez conditions exists, then a special condition of probation may be upheld. “While the [sentencing] judge need not make a finding, a special condition of probation, when challenged on grounds of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archer v. State
...conditions of probation for an abuse of discretion. See J.R.M. v. State, 228 So. 3d 1147, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ; Spano v. State, 60 So. 3d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). However, if a motion to correct sentence presents a pure question of law, our standard of review is de novo. Thomas ......
-
Villanueva v. State
...that “a special condition of probation cannot be imposed if it is so punitive as to be unrelated to rehabilitation.” Spano v. State, 60 So.3d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (internal quotations, alteration, and citations omitted). Although Villanueva argues that a trial court is limited in ......
-
Peterson v. Denker, 4D09–3011.
...that the trial court's judgment was supported by competent substantial evidence; the court did not abuse its discretion in modifying the [60 So.3d 1108] custody arrangements. We therefore affirm the final judgment. Affirmed.--------Notes: 1. In its final order the trial court noted that the......
-
A.H. v. State, No. 3D19-2139
...of probation is for an abuse of discretion. See J.R.M. v. State, 228 So. 3d 1147, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (citing Spano v. State, 60 So. 3d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) ). At the time of disposition, Appellant had two other pending cases and had previously been the subject of two pick-up......
-
Judgment and sentence
...to the crime, it related to conduct that was not criminal, and it was not related to present or future criminal conduct. Spano v. State, 60 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) The fact that standard conditions of probation were not announced at the time of sentencing and that defendant was not ......