Kevin Marcus Boyd v. State of Florida

268 So. 3d 934
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 22, 2019
Docket18-3773
StatusPublished

This text of 268 So. 3d 934 (Kevin Marcus Boyd v. State of Florida) 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
Kevin Marcus Boyd v. State of Florida, 268 So. 3d 934 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D18-3773 _____________________________

KEVIN MARCUS BOYD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Phillip A. Pena, Judge.

April 22, 2019

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order modifying his probation because he contends the State failed to put forward evidence that he willfully violated two conditions. We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant willfully violated his probation by ignoring his financial obligation.

However, we find the trial court erred in finding appellant willfully violated the condition of his probation requiring him to maintain either full-time employment or full-time education. Such a provision is invalid as a matter of law unless it provides a “good faith effort” exception. See Aviles v. State, 165 So. 3d 841, 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that a full-time employment condition of probation was invalid because it did not contain an exception if factors outside of the probationer’s control could prevent completion of the requirement); see also Silas v. State, 208 So. 3d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding that a condition of probation requiring a probationer to obtain a GED was invalid because it did not provide a “good faith effort” exception).

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order modifying appellant’s probation but REMAND for entry of a corrected modification order. See Redd v. State, 204 So. 3d 558, 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

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

Related

Reynaldo Antonio Aviles v. State of Florida
165 So. 3d 841 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Silas v. State
208 So. 3d 1289 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Redd v. State
204 So. 3d 558 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 So. 3d 934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kevin-marcus-boyd-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2019.