Cyr v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cyr v. State

747 So. 2d 1005, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16262, 1999 WL 1111725

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 8, 1999

DocketNo. 98-04998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 747 So. 2d 1005 (Cyr 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

Cyr v. State, 747 So. 2d 1005, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16262, 1999 WL 1111725 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge,

The circuit court revoked Michael Cyr’s probation for failing to comply with the condition that he “shall continue sex offender counseling.” Cyr had attended counseling sessions for five years, although the evidence showed his attendance was sporadic. The leader of the program, a mental health therapist, finally terminated him for a number of reasons. In finding a violation, the circuit court observed that Cyr “was to enter and successfully complete sex offender counseling, [and] that counseling, in fact, was not completed.” But Cyr’s probation condition did not direct him to complete counseling, nor did it [1006]*1006require him to remain in a counseling program for a specified period. Probation may not be revoked based on a condition such as Cyr’s when the probationer has actually attended some counseling sessions, but has either quit or been involuntarily terminated. See Larangera v. State, 686 So.2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Bell v. State, 643 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the revocation of probation.

Reversed.

PATTERSON, C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.

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

NORTHCUTT, Judge,

The circuit court revoked Michael Cyr’s probation for failing to comply with the condition that he “shall continue sex offender counseling.” Cyr had attended counseling sessions for five years, although the evidence showed his attendance was sporadic. The leader of the program, a mental health therapist, finally terminated him for a number of reasons. In finding a violation, the circuit court observed that Cyr “was to enter and successfully complete sex offender counseling, [and] that counseling, in fact, was not completed.” But Cyr’s probation condition did not direct him to complete counseling, nor did it [1006]*1006require him to remain in a counseling program for a specified period. Probation may not be revoked based on a condition such as Cyr’s when the probationer has actually attended some counseling sessions, but has either quit or been involuntarily terminated. See Larangera v. State, 686 So.2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Bell v. State, 643 So.2d 674 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse the revocation of probation.

Reversed.

PATTERSON, C.J., and STRINGER, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

747 So. 2d 1005, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 16262, 1999 WL 1111725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cyr-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack