Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

909 So. 2d 974

Docket No. 2D04-3604.

Yates v. State

Frank YATES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 9, 2005.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2005-09-09

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2011

6 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A violation of community control which triggers revocation must be both willful and substantial, and the willful and substantial nature of the violation must be supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Although appellant was discharged from the Day Top drug program, he expressed a willingness to continue in the program or complete some other form of drug treatment. The community control order did not specify the period within which appellant was to complete the program or how many chances he would have to obtain success. Since the order was not specific and appellant has expressed a willingness to complete some form of drug treatment, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appellant's community control.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 939 So. 2d 242 - Campbell v. State

“The trial court may revoke probation or community control only if the State proves by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant willfully and substantially violated a specific condition of the probation or community control. Padelt v. State, 793 So.2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 926 So. 2d 413 - Stewart v. State

Relies on 664 So. 2d 23 - Salzano v. State · 744 So. 2d 537 - Jones v. State · Wilkerson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-09-09

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Craig J. Trocino, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

¶2Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

¶3LaROSE, Judge.

¶4Frank Yates appeals orders revoking his community control and imposing a three-year prison sentence. He claims that the asserted violation of a condition of his community control was not willful and substantial. We agree and reverse.

¶5Special condition 17 of Mr. Yates' community control order required him to enter and successfully complete the PAR drug treatment program. After completing most of the program, Mr. Yates violated a PAR rule and was terminated. An affidavit of violation of community control was filed with the trial court.

¶6At his revocation hearing, Mr. Yates asserted that termination prior to the completion of the required PAR program was not a willful and substantial violation of the community control order because the order did not require completion within a specified time and sufficient time remained for him to complete the program. See Wilkerson v. State,884 So.2d 153 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

¶7The trial court may revoke probation or community control only if the State proves by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant willfully and substantially violated a specific condition of the probation or community control. Padelt*975v. State,793 So.2d 30, 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Here, the State failed to satisfy its burden.

¶8Although PAR terminated Mr. Yates' participation in its program, the State did not establish that he was unwilling or unable to complete the program during the remaining term of his community control. See Wilkerson, 884, So.2d at 154. Moreover, the community control order did not specify the period within which Mr. Yates was to complete the PAR program or how many chances he would have to succeed. The absence of such specificity warrants reversal. See Jones v. State,744 So.2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (trial court erred in revoking community control on basis of defendant's discharge from residential treatment program when order lacked specificity and defendant desired treatment); Salzano v. State,664 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (revocation of community control reversed where order did not specify time period within which to complete program or how many chances defendant would have to complete program).

¶9We reverse the orders revoking community control and imposing a prison sentence and remand for further proceedings.

¶10NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.

/909/so2d/974 · .json · Public domain