643 So. 2d 674 - Bell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The standard of review for probation revocation orders is whether the trial court abused its discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Van Wagner v. State · 965 So. 2d 1252 - Smith v. State

2. “We emphasize that this holding does not conflict with our recent decision in Archer , in which we affirmed a probation revocation order under analogous, but by no means identical, circumstances. Significantly, the Archer decision involves at least three important factual distinctions. First, the probation condition at issue in Archer required that the appellant successfully complete (as opposed to “submit to”) psychological treatment. Id. at 562 . Second, the Archer appellant’s lack of desire to complete counseling was relevant to the specificity of his probation condition requiring him to complete counseling. Id. at 563 . Again, because the probation conditions at issue here do not require Bell to complete counseling, his lack of desire to do so is irrelevant. Third, the appellant in Archer was discharged from counseling because he refused to acknowledge that he had a sexual problem. Id. at 562 . In contrast, Bell was discharged from counseling for failing to admit his guilt in the underlying crimes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 82 So. 3d 152 - Oertel v. State

3. “Bell’s probation order merely required that he “submit to” psychosexual counseling — a requirement which he satisfied by attending eight weekly counseling sessions before being terminated therefrom by his counselor for refusing to admit to the underlying charges. The probation order did not require that he admit to the underlying charges or that he complete the counseling at issue. These additional requirements imposed respectively by Bell’s counselor and probation officer amounted to an unauthorized and impermissible upward modification of Bell’s probation conditions, and Bell cannot now be penalized for failing to abide by them. As such, we reverse Bell’s probation revocation and remand to the trial court with directions that Bell’s probation be reinstated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 82 So. 3d 152 - Oertel v. State