Charles v. State
209 So.3d 32, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16217 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To revoke probation, the state must prove by a greater weight of the evidence that the probationer's violation of a condition was both willful and substantial. A failure to comply is not willful if the probationer made reasonable efforts but was prevented by circumstances beyond their control.
Facts:
- While on probation, Clalibeltha Charles was required to attend a drug and alcohol treatment program.
- Charles was turned away from one treatment session because she had to bring her two infant children, for whom she had no childcare.
- For a subsequent session, Charles secured childcare but arrived five minutes late due to waiting on the babysitter and was again turned away.
- As a result of these two missed sessions, the treatment center unsuccessfully discharged Charles from its program.
- Charles was living in a pay-by-the-week motel but was abruptly evicted after being unable to pay the weekly rent.
- This eviction left Charles temporarily homeless and without a working telephone.
- Charles did not immediately inform her probation officer of her change in residence because she was homeless and had no new address to provide.
- Eleven days after her eviction, upon securing a new residence, Charles reported to her probation officer and provided the new address.
Procedural Posture:
- A probation officer filed an Affidavit of Violation against Clalibeltha Charles in the Florida circuit court (trial court).
- The trial court held a violation of probation (VOP) hearing on the allegations.
- Following the hearing, the trial court found Charles willfully violated her probation, revoked it, and sentenced her to 40.5 months in prison.
- Clalibeltha Charles, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order of revocation to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a probationer's failure to complete a treatment program and provide prior notice of a residence change constitute a willful and substantial violation of probation sufficient for revocation when the failures were caused by childcare issues and an abrupt eviction leading to temporary homelessness?
Opinions:
Majority - Damoorgian, J.
No. A probationer's failure to comply with conditions of probation does not constitute a willful violation when the probationer made reasonable efforts to comply but was thwarted by circumstances beyond their control. The State failed to meet its burden of proving that Charles's violations were willful and substantial. Charles's uncontroverted testimony established that her discharge from the treatment program was due to insurmountable childcare issues, not a deliberate refusal to attend. Similarly, her failure to obtain prior consent for a change of residence was not willful because she was abruptly evicted, made temporarily homeless, and reported her new address as soon as she was able. The State presented no evidence to rebut her explanations, therefore the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her probation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required for probation revocation, emphasizing that the state must prove a violation was a deliberate and willful act. It clarifies that 'willfulness' is not established by the mere fact of non-compliance. The ruling is significant for requiring courts to consider a probationer's socioeconomic circumstances, such as poverty, childcare responsibilities, and housing instability, as valid defenses against an allegation of a willful violation. This precedent protects probationers who make good-faith efforts to comply but fail due to external factors beyond their control.
