Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 948.063 (2025)

Violations of probation or community control by designated sexual offenders and sexual predators.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

948.063 Violations of probation or community control by designated sexual offenders and sexual predators.—

(1) If probation or community control for any felony offense is revoked by the court pursuant to s. 948.06(2)(e) and the offender is designated as a sexual offender pursuant to s. 943.0435 or s. 944.607 or as a sexual predator pursuant to s. 775.21 for unlawful sexual activity involving a victim 15 years of age or younger and the offender is 18 years of age or older, and if the court imposes a subsequent term of supervision following the revocation of probation or community control, the court must order electronic monitoring as a condition of the subsequent term of probation or community control.

(2) If the probationer or offender is required to register as a sexual predator under s. 775.21 or as a sexual offender under s. 943.0435 or s. 944.607 for unlawful sexual activity involving a victim 15 years of age or younger and the probationer or offender is 18 years of age or older and has violated the conditions of his or her probation or community control, but the court does not revoke the probation or community control, the court shall nevertheless modify the probation or community control to include electronic monitoring for any probationer or offender not then subject to electronic monitoring.

History.—s. 17, ch. 2005-28; s. 2, ch. 2006-235; s. 57, ch. 2016-24; s. 23, ch. 2016-104; s. 27, ch. 2021-156; ss. 48, 78, 94, ch. 2025-156.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 2007–2019 · leading case: Witchard v. State, 68 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Witchard v. State, 68 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). · cites it 26× “Ronnie Witchard appeals from the trial court’s order which modified the conditions of his sex offender probation to include mandatory electronic monitoring pursuant to section 948.063, Florida Statutes (2008).”

Fields v. State, 968 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). · cites it 6× “Eleven days later, the State filed a motion to impose electronic monitoring pursuant to section 948.063, Florida Statutes (2006).”

Bell v. State, 24 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). · cites it 3× “Nevertheless, the State contends that section 948.063 provides a basis for the imposition of electronic monitoring.”

Blue v. State, 73 So. 3d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). · cites it 2× “The record is unclear whether the trial court believed that the JLA (section 948.063, Florida Statutes (2008)) applied to Blue’s sentence or whether the court relied upon section 948.”

State v. Flynn, 95 So. 3d 436 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). · cites it 2× “30(3), the trial court was prohibited from granting Floyd’s motion to modify the terms of his probation to delete mandatory electronic monitoring.”

State v. PETRAE, 35 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). · cites it 4× “As the State argued below, section 948.063, Florida Statutes, mandates the electronic monitoring of certain sex offenders who violate their probation and for whom probation is reinstated.”

McCarron v. State, 185 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). · cites it 2× “McCarron would be required to submit to electronic monitoring in accordance with section 948.063(2), Florida Statutes (2013).”

Colvin v. State, 138 So. 3d 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). · cites it 2× “The only difference between the two orders is the addition of paragraph 5, which requires Colvin to submit to electronic monitoring “as required by the Jessica Lunsford Act.” Colvin timely appealed.”

Sam Casseus v. State of Florida, 269 So. 3d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). “3d at 411 (construing § 948.063, Florida Statutes). The court reasoned that application of the statute to probationers who committed their crimes prior to its effective date violated the ex post facto clause of the constitution because the law “changes the punishment, and…”

Brewer v. State, 99 So. 3d 519 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). “Because the transcript of the modification hearing clearly confirms that the trial court intended to apply section 948.063 of the Florida Statutes and not the Jessica Lunsford Act as recited in the court’s written order, we reverse and remand for correction of the order…”

— 948.063(1) — 3 cases

Witchard v. State, 68 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “Ronnie Witchard appeals from the trial court’s order which modified the conditions of his sex offender probation to include mandatory electronic monitoring pursuant to section 948.063, Florida Statutes (2008).”

Fields v. State, 968 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). “Eleven days later, the State filed a motion to impose electronic monitoring pursuant to section 948.063, Florida Statutes (2006).”

State v. PETRAE, 35 So. 3d 1012 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). “As the State argued below, section 948.063, Florida Statutes, mandates the electronic monitoring of certain sex offenders who violate their probation and for whom probation is reinstated.”

— 948.063(2) — 4 cases

Fields v. State, 968 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). “Eleven days later, the State filed a motion to impose electronic monitoring pursuant to section 948.063, Florida Statutes (2006).”

Bell v. State, 24 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). “Nevertheless, the State contends that section 948.063 provides a basis for the imposition of electronic monitoring.”

McCarron v. State, 185 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). “McCarron would be required to submit to electronic monitoring in accordance with section 948.063(2), Florida Statutes (2013).”

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.