Williams v. State, 97-04422.
| Decision Date | 12 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-04422.,97-04422. |
| Citation | 728 So.2d 287 |
| Parties | Roger Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Guillermo E. Gomez of Richard Escobar, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Roger Williams appeals from the order revoking his probation. We reverse because the record fails to support the trial court's finding that Williams' violations of the conditions of his probation were willful and substantial.
In 1994, Williams pleaded guilty to aggravated child abuse. He had no prior criminal record. He was sentenced to two years of community control to be followed by three years of probation. He had successfully completed the community control and was serving his probation when he was arrested for battery (domestic violence). In an affidavit and amended affidavit of violation of probation, Williams' probation officer alleged that he had committed the battery, had failed to submit written monthly reports for March, April, and May of 1997, and he had failed to submit to urinalysis testing, as requested by his probation officer.
At the probation revocation hearing, Officer Haranowski of the Tampa Police Department, testified over Williams' hearsay objection that he investigated the battery and that the alleged victim, Ronnie Morrison, told him that Williams had struck her. Morrison did not testify. Williams testified that Morrison had attacked him and that he had pushed her in self-defense. No further evidence was offered. Although hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation revocation hearing, it cannot be the sole basis of revocation. See Colina v. State, 629 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
. We, therefore, reverse the finding that Williams violated his probation by committing a battery.
The remaining alleged violations, which are technical in nature, present a more difficult issue. These violations were proven by Williams' probation officer's uncontroverted testimony. The question is whether the violations were substantial and willful. The failure to file monthly reports is a sufficient basis for revocation of probation. See Jordan v. State, 610 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
. The failure to submit to urine screens is also a valid basis for revocation. See Williams v. State, 563 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). However, illness can render technical...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hill
...several Florida cases in which the court held that a violation must be wilful before probation may be revoked. See Williams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla. App. 1999); Garcia v. State, 701 So. 2d 607, 608 (Fla. App. 1997); Sanders v. State, 675 So. 2d 665, 665-66 (Fla. App. 1996); Harri......
-
Garcia-Rodriguez v. State, Case No. 2D19-2969
...This evidence strongly supports Garcia's argument that the alleged violation of Condition 26 was not willful, see Williams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ("Either a mental or a physical illness can be debilitating to the point that a probationer cannot comply with the term......
-
Meade v. State, 1D01-0168.
...physical illness can be debilitating to the point that a probationer cannot comply with the terms of probation. See Williams v. State, 728 So.2d 287, 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (probationer suffering from severe depression did not have the will to make decisions and, thus, did not willfully fai......
-
Spry v. State
...of his drinking cannot be considered willful because of his disease. In support of his position, appellant cites Williams v. State, 728 So.2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). In Williams, this court held that a mental or physical illness can render certain violations of probation not willful and sub......
-
Post-trial
...a “willful and substantial” violation of probation in order for the probation to be revoked. Additionally, in Williams v. State , 728 So. 2d 287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1999), the court had held that a mental or physical illness can render certain probation violations to be not willfu......