948.05
Court to admonish or commend probationer or offender in community control; graduated incentives.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
948.05 Court to admonish or commend probationer or offender in community control; graduated incentives.—
(1) A court may at any time cause a probationer or offender in community control to appear before it to be admonished or commended, and, when satisfied that its action will be for the best interests of justice and the welfare of society, it may discharge the probationer or offender in community control from further supervision.
(2) The department shall implement a system of graduated incentives to promote compliance with the terms of supervision, encourage educational achievement and stable employment, and prioritize the highest levels of supervision for probationers or offenders presenting the greatest risk of recidivism.
(a) As part of the graduated incentives system, the department may, without leave of court, offer the following incentives to a compliant probationer or offender in community control:
1. Up to 25 percent reduction of required community service hours;
2. Waiver of supervision fees;
3. Reduction in frequency of reporting;
4. Permission to report by mail or telephone; or
5. Transfer of an eligible offender to administrative probation as authorized under s. 948.013.
(b) The department may also incentivize positive behavior and compliance with recommendations to the court to modify the terms of supervision, including recommending:
1. Permission to travel;
2. Reduction of supervision type;
3. Modification or cessation of curfew;
4. Reduction or cessation of substance abuse testing; or
5. Early termination of supervision.
(c) The department shall, without leave of court, incentivize educational achievement by awarding a compliant probationer or offender in community control with a 60-day reduction of his or her term of supervision for each educational advancement activity he or she completes during the term of supervision. As used in this paragraph, the term “educational advancement activity” means a high school equivalency degree, an academic degree, or a vocational certificate.
(d) The department shall, without leave of court, incentivize stable employment by awarding a compliant probationer or offender in community control a 30-day reduction of his or her term of supervision for each period of workforce achievement he or she completes during the term of supervision. As used in this paragraph, the term “workforce achievement” means continuous and verifiable full-time employment, for at least 30 hours per week for a 6-month period, for which the probationer or offender earns a wage. The department shall verify such employment through supporting documentation, which may include, but need not be limited to, any record, letter, pay stub, contract, or other department-approved method of verification.
(e) A probationer or offender in community control who commits a subsequent violation of probation may forfeit any previously earned probation incentive, as determined appropriate by his or her probation officer.
(f) A probationer or offender in community control who is placed under supervision for committing or attempting, soliciting, or conspiring to commit a violation of any felony offense described in s. 775.21(4)(a)1.a. or b. or s. 943.0435(1)(h)1.a., or who qualifies as a violent felony offender of special concern under s. 948.06(8)(b) is not eligible for any reduction of his or her term of supervision under this section.
History.—s. 25, ch. 20519, 1941; s. 19, ch. 83-131; s. 62, ch. 2019-167; s. 3, ch. 2022-166; s. 3, ch. 2023-146; ss. 46, 76, ch. 2025-156.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: Enea v. State
Enea v. State (2015)
“§ 948.05, Fla. Stat. (2015). The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, referring to Enea’s argument as “erroneous.”
Debra LaFave v. State of Florida (2014)
“LaFave’s Motion At the hearing on LaFave’s Motion to Terminate Probation, LaFave argued that under section 948.05, Florida Statutes (2011), the trial court has inherent jurisdiction to hear the motion and to reward defendants based on their successful completion, or substantial…”
Ziegler v. State (1980)
“The defendant has appealed an order denying his motion, filed pursuant to Section 948.05, Fla. Stat. (1977), for early termination of a ten-year period of probation which had been previously and lawfully imposed.”
Baker v. State (1993)
“§ 948.05, Fla. Stat. (1991). Reversed and remanded for correction of sentence and probation order.”
Delaney v. State (1966)
“(3) The Circuit Court may at any time cause the Appellant to appear before it to be admonished or commended, and may discharge him from further supervision when satisfied that its action will be for the best interests of justice and the welfare of society (F.S. § 948.05,…”
Murphy v. State (2008)
“See § 948.05, Fla. Stat. (1991); Baker, 619 So.”
Jones v. State (1995)
“§ 948.05, Fla. Stat. (1991)." Thus, probation condition 33 must be stricken.”
Burgos v. State (2000)
“The third district dismissed the appeal and stated Since the authority conferred upon the court by Section 948.05 [1] is entirely a matter of grace, we hold that an order denying that relief is non-appealable.”
State v. Beardsley (1985)
“Likewise, Section 948.05 gives the trial judge the power to prematurely terminate probation, but does not permit of withdrawal of adjudication.”
Roy v. State (1968)
“Such is not the case under F.S. § 948.05, F.S.A. and we did not so intend to infer.”
State v. LaFave (2012)
“Her position is that section 948.05, Florida Statutes (2003), allowed the circuit court to terminate her probation early and that the court therefore did not depart from the essential requirements of the law.”
Johnston v. State (2016)
“3d DCA 1980) (“Since the authority [to terminate probation early] conferred on the court by section 948.05 is entirely a matter of grace, we hold that an order denying that relief is non-appealable,”).”
— 948.05(1999) — 1 case
Burgos v. State (2000)
“The third district dismissed the appeal and stated Since the authority conferred upon the court by Section 948.05 [1] is entirely a matter of grace, we hold that an order denying that relief is non-appealable.”
— 948.05(2) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.