Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

691 So. 2d 594

Docket No. 96-1854.

Swatzell v. State

Michael SWATZELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 16, 1997.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-04-16

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1999

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“defendant have no contact with anyone under 18 years of age unless supervised by someone over the age of 25”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including 736 So. 2d 72 - Matthews v. State, 740 So. 2d 1253 - Manon v. State

Relies on Matos v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc. · Rowles v. State · Oliver v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-04-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*595 Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.

¶3Before LEVY, GREEN and SHEVIN, JJ.

¶4

CONFESSION OF ERROR

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6Michael Swatzell appeals his sentence asserting error in a special condition of probation imposed by the trial court. Based on the state's proper confession of error, we strike the following special condition of probation: that defendant have no contact with anyone under 18 years of age unless supervised by someone over the age of 25. This condition is impermissibly broad because the possibility of unintentional violation exists. See Rowles v. State,682 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Oliver v. State,672 So.2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Graham v. State,658 So.2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We, therefore, strike the condition and remand the case to the trial court to rephrase the condition in a manner that minimizes the potential for inadvertent violations.

¶7Reversed and remanded.

/691/so2d/594 · .json · Public domain