BENNY LEE WATSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Benny Lee Watson appealed his probation revocation and sentencing, arguing he did not willfully violate probation and was improperly sentenced. The court affirmed the revocation, finding Watson violated probation by failing to report to his probation officer within seventy-two hours of release and by failing to comply with other conditions, and affirmed the sentencing scheme despite minor oral misstatement by the trial court.
The appellant willfully violated his probation through his failure to report timely and comply with other probation conditions. Although the trial court misspoke orally when identifying the counts at sentencing, the error was harmless and corrected in the written final judgment and probation order.
[1] A probationer willfully violates probation by failing to report to a probation officer within the required timeframe when the explanation for tardiness does not represent…
[2] A probationer's failure to report to a probation officer, enroll in a required treatment program, and reside at a designated location constitutes sufficient indication of…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Appellant was due to report on July 3 or 4, but did not do so until July 9. Despite the interruption of that time period by a national holiday, appellant was released on June 30 or July 1, thus giving him at least two days to locate his probation officer.”
Establishes that appellant had sufficient opportunity to comply with the reporting requirement despite the national holiday interruption
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson was released from custody on June 30 or July 1 and was required to report to his probation officer within seventy-two hours. He did not report …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful And Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant maintains that he did not willfully violate his probation and that he was improperly sentenced. We believe that he did willfully violate his probation, and affirm the revocation. Although we agree that the court misspoke when he orally identified the counts at the sentencing, we conclude that the error was obviated and rendered harmless in the written order of probation and the final judgment.
Although appellant argues that he did not willfully violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer, as required, within seventy-two hours of his release, we are not persuaded. Appellant was due to report on July 3 or 4, but did not do so until July 9. Despite the interruption of that time period by a national holiday, appellant was released on June 30 or July 1, thus giving him at least two days to locate his probation officer. Appellant’s explanation for his tardiness does not represent a good faith effort to comply. Upon his release, appellant was provided a copy of the probation order, signed by him, which required him to report within seventy-two hours of his release. Appellant was given an address and phone num ber to contact, and signed for that information. Not only did appellant fail to report, he failed to be enrolled in a sexual offender treatment program, as required. He also could not be located at the YMCA, where he was required to live. We conclude that these facts provide sufficient indication that appellant willfully violated his probation.
Appellant also argues that he was improperly sentenced. Upon review of the oral and written orders and the final judgment, we conclude that the court misspoke at the hearing when he identified the counts. However, in entering the written final judgment and the order of probation, the court corrected his error to reflect the following sentencing scheme: Count I — No new sentence; Count II — Five years probation consecutive to the twelve-year D.O.C. term imposed in Count III, but concurrent with the three-year probationary term imposed in Count III; Count IV — Twelve years D.O.C., followed by three years probation, said probation to run concurrent with the probation imposed in Count II.
We, accordingly, affirm the revocation of probation and affirm the sentencing scheme described above.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hickey v. State, 984 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Watson v. State, 647 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). PLEUS, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.…