Diaz v. State, 629 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Diaz v. State, 629 So. 2d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …no specific condition of probation was imposed requiring probationer to admit to a counselor the specific acts charged. at p. 262 ≈ altered
20 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Warren Staples v. State of Florida (fla, 2016-10-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Warren Staples v. State of Florida (4×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fla. · 2016 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
no specific condition of probation was imposed requiring probationer to admit to a counselor the specific acts charged.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bennett v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
As in Diaz v. State, 629 So.2d 261, 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), under these circumstances, Bennett's refusal to admit to the sexual conduct does not constitute a willful and substantial violation of the terms of his probation.
cited Cited "see" State v. Faraday
Conn. App. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Diaz v. Florida, 629 So. 2d 261, 262 (Fla. App. 1993).
cited Cited "see" State Ex Rel. Warren v. Schwarz
Wis. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Diaz, 629 So. 2d at 261-62 .
discussed Cited "see" Morstad v. State (2×)
N.D. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Diaz v. State, 629 So.2d 261, 262 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.1993) (offender’s probation could not be revoked based on his refusal to admit guilt as part of treatment because no specific condition of probation required admission of guilt).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Miguel DIAZ, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
92-3641.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Dec 15, 1993.
629 So. 2d 261
1993 WL 517245
Per Curiam.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Paul E. Petillo, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sarah B. Mayer, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the revocation of appellant's probation and remand with directions that probation be reinstated.

Pursuant to a plea agreement appellant entered a guilty plea and was placed on two years probation. One condition of probation was that appellant receive a psychological evaluation and "any treatment or counseling deemed necessary." Subsequently, the state[*262] sought to revoke appellant's probation because he would not admit to a counselor that he had committed the specific conduct underlying the criminal charges.[1] Upon hearing, his probation was revoked and he was sentenced to a term of incarceration.

When appellant's guilty plea was entered and accepted, he was not asked to admit the unlawful act charged. Rather, he was asked if he was entering the plea "in his best interest." He did admit that if there was a trial "it is possible [he] could be convicted." After being placed on probation, appellant was evaluated and attended all counseling sessions required. No specific condition of probation was imposed requiring him to admit to a counselor the specific acts charged. Under these circumstances we do not believe appellant has been proven to have violated the terms of his probation. Yancey v. State, 547 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); see also and compare Haynes v. State, 571 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990), with Archer v. State, 604 So.2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).

Appellant has apparently done everything that the terms of the probation order require, including participating in psychological counseling. If it is a trial court's determination that an admission of guilt to specific conduct to a counselor is necessary, then the defendant should be so advised before a plea agreement is approved. Here, the appellant did not admit his guilt to the specific conduct in plea negotiations or at any court hearing, and no term of probation requiring him to do so was imposed.

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

1 At the subsequent revocation hearing the counselor testified that it was important to the success of the counseling that the appellant admit the specific misconduct.