Jones v. State, 744 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Search
Jones v. State, 744 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (20 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Smith v. State (fladistctapp, 2007-10-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
See also Yates v. State, 909 So.2d 974, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Wilkerson v. State, 884 So.2d 153, 153-54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); O'Neal v. State, 801 So.2d 280, 280-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Jones v. State, 744 So.2d 537, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Campbell v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See also Yates v. State, 909 So. 2d 974, 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Wilkerson v. State, 884 So. 2d 153, 153-54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); O'Neal v. State, 801 So. 2d 280, 280-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Jones v. State, 744 So. 2d 537, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McCray v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See Bissman v. State, 746 So.2d 489, 490 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Jones v. State, 744 So.2d 537, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Smith v. State, 705 So.2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
discussed Cited "see" Lawson v. State (2×)
Fla. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
discussed Cited "see" Yates v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
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).
cited Cited "see" Lynom v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jones v. State, 744 So.2d 537, 538-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Salzano v. State, 664 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jenkins v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also Jones v. State, 744 So.2d 537, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) ("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.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Palma v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
While several cases state that it is an abuse of discretion to find a willful and substantial violation of probation where a defendant has expressed a willingness to complete a program and where the order of probation did not specify a date certain for compliance, see O'Neal v. State, 801 So.2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Jones v. State, 744 So.2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), the instant case is distinguishable.
Walter JONES, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
99-00385.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Oct 20, 1999.
744 So. 2d 537
Stringer.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

[*538] James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Richard P. Albertine, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John T. Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

STRINGER, Judge.

Appellant, Walter Jones, challenges the revocation of his community control. We reverse because appellant's community control violation was not willful or substantial.

Appellant's community control violation stems from the fact that he was discharged from the Day Top Drug Treatment Facility after threatening another resident. Special condition twenty-two (22) of appellant's community control required that he "enter and successfully complete residential treatment program (DAY TOP)." The record of the revocation hearing reveals that appellant was enrolled in the Day Top drug program as ordered. Appellant had completed eleven months of the twelve-month residential portion of the program. Maureen Quavis, a clinical counselor, testified that one day during a group counseling session another resident was critical of appellant's behavior in the program. Appellant and the other resident began to argue, and appellant ultimately told the resident, "I'm going to get you." Appellant was then removed from the group and taken to the director of the Day Top program. The director told appellant that in order to remain in the program he would have to present himself before the entire community of residents, admit his transgression, and outline a plan as to how he would change his behavior to ensure that such threats are not made in the future. A few days later, appellant went before the residents and apologized for his threatening statement. However, appellant refused to outline a plan as to how he would prevent such threats from occurring in the future. Appellant was discharged from the program the following day.

At trial, appellant testified that he did not outline a plan as instructed because at the time he was angry and could not continue speaking before the community. Appellant testified that he needed treatment and wanted to continue his treatment at the Day Top program or attend another drug treatment facility.

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. See Hightower v. State, 529 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). 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. See Salzano v. State, 664 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). 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. See Salzano, 664 So.2d at 24; Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).

Accordingly, we reverse the revocation order and remand this cause with directions[*539] to reinstate appellant's community control.

Reversed and remanded.

PATTERSON, C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., Concur.