Guilford v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guilford v. State

37 So. 3d 981, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9558, 2010 WL 2594635

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 30, 2010

Docket3D09-1923

StatusPublished

This text of 37 So. 3d 981 (Guilford 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

Guilford v. State, 37 So. 3d 981, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9558, 2010 WL 2594635 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although presented as a case in which a probationer needed religious accommodation to participate in a substance abuse rehabilitation program, the record in this case includes ample evidence that the defendant violated his probation despite substantial offers to provide accommodation. No clergy or elder from the defendant’s religious denomination testified that the residential twelve-step rehabilitation program would offend or interfere with the defendant’s professed faith, and the defendant refused other alternatives. The defendant himself, having previously violated probation on other occasions, stated that he preferred a return to incarceration rather than a proffered alternative rehabilitation program.

The trial court’s “broad discretion” regarding the revocation of probation was not abused, Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646 (Fla.2008), and we find no First Amendment encroachment proven.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although presented as a case in which a probationer needed religious accommodation to participate in a substance abuse rehabilitation program, the record in this case includes ample evidence that the defendant violated his probation despite substantial offers to provide accommodation. No clergy or elder from the defendant’s religious denomination testified that the residential twelve-step rehabilitation program would offend or interfere with the defendant’s professed faith, and the defendant refused other alternatives. The defendant himself, having previously violated probation on other occasions, stated that he preferred a return to incarceration rather than a proffered alternative rehabilitation program.

The trial court’s “broad discretion” regarding the revocation of probation was not abused, Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646 (Fla.2008), and we find no First Amendment encroachment proven.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 So. 3d 981, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 9558, 2010 WL 2594635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guilford-v-state-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack