Markel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Markel v. State

855 So. 2d 719, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15095, 2003 WL 22299006

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 8, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-3702

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 855 So. 2d 719 (Markel 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

Markel v. State, 855 So. 2d 719, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15095, 2003 WL 22299006 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court revoked appellant’s probation because appellant violated his curfew and failed to successfully complete a sex offender treatment program. We find no error as to the curfew; however, appellant had not been given a deadline in which to complete the sex offender program. He had enrolled in, but not completed, three different programs in different locations to which he had moved.

Where an order of probation does not specify a date for completing a program, and the defendant has expressed a willingness to participate, it is an abuse of discretion to find a willful and substantial probation violation. O’Neal v. State, 801 So.2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We therefore reverse the finding as to the program and remand in order for the trial court to determine whether probation should be revoked based solely on the curfew violation.

POLEN, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court revoked appellant’s probation because appellant violated his curfew and failed to successfully complete a sex offender treatment program. We find no error as to the curfew; however, appellant had not been given a deadline in which to complete the sex offender program. He had enrolled in, but not completed, three different programs in different locations to which he had moved.

Where an order of probation does not specify a date for completing a program, and the defendant has expressed a willingness to participate, it is an abuse of discretion to find a willful and substantial probation violation. O’Neal v. State, 801 So.2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We therefore reverse the finding as to the program and remand in order for the trial court to determine whether probation should be revoked based solely on the curfew violation.

POLEN, KLEIN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

855 So. 2d 719, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 15095, 2003 WL 22299006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markel-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack