Cardoso v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cardoso v. State

421 So. 2d 589, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21394

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 12, 1982

DocketNo. 82-176

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 421 So. 2d 589 (Cardoso v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cardoso v. State, 421 So. 2d 589, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21394 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

BARKDULL, Judge.

When there was evidence before a trial court in a probation violation proceeding that a defendant had the capacity to “understand” and the “intelligence” to be a “willing participant” in a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Program and he had determined “not to cooperate” therein, a trial court will be sustained in revoking the defendant’s probation.

The record in the instant case supports such a finding of willful failure on the part of the defendant to complete such a program which was a special condition of probation. Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183 (Fla.1978); Brown v. State, 400 So.2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ordonez v. State, 408 So.2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Postell v. State, 383 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Owens v. State, 354 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

The appellant relied heavily on Donneil v. State 377 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) as controlling the instant case. We do not agree. It is clear from the Donneil case that the defendant was of limited capacity and was not able to comprehend the program to which he was assigned as a special condition of probation. In the instant case, all the witnesses agreed that the defendant in this cause, had the intelligence and the capacity to participate in the program; therefore, we find the cited case distinguishable on the facts. The orders revoking probation and sentence thereafter, are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BARKDULL, Judge.

When there was evidence before a trial court in a probation violation proceeding that a defendant had the capacity to “understand” and the “intelligence” to be a “willing participant” in a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Program and he had determined “not to cooperate” therein, a trial court will be sustained in revoking the defendant’s probation.

The record in the instant case supports such a finding of willful failure on the part of the defendant to complete such a program which was a special condition of probation. Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183 (Fla.1978); Brown v. State, 400 So.2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ordonez v. State, 408 So.2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Postell v. State, 383 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Owens v. State, 354 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).

The appellant relied heavily on Donneil v. State 377 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) as controlling the instant case. We do not agree. It is clear from the Donneil case that the defendant was of limited capacity and was not able to comprehend the program to which he was assigned as a special condition of probation. In the instant case, all the witnesses agreed that the defendant in this cause, had the intelligence and the capacity to participate in the program; therefore, we find the cited case distinguishable on the facts. The orders revoking probation and sentence thereafter, are hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 So. 2d 589, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 21394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardoso-v-state-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack