Prickett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Prickett v. State

895 So. 2d 533, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3181, 2005 WL 548249

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 10, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-1628

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 895 So. 2d 533 (Prickett 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

Prickett v. State, 895 So. 2d 533, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3181, 2005 WL 548249 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

David Michael Prickett appeals the order revoking his probation and consequent ten-year sentence. We reverse.

Proof that he spoke to a young woman under the age of eighteen while she was [534]*534working as a cashier in a grocery store did not establish a willful, substantial violation of the probation condition that he “have no unsupervised contact with minors.” See Smith v. State, 711 So.2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that the State must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that a defendant violated a term of his probation). For one thing, the State failed to prove that the cashier was not working under the supervision of the store manager. See Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that, while a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a term of probation has been violated, findings of fact must rest on competent, substantial evidence).

Reversed and remanded with instructions that appellant be reinstated to probation.

BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., Concur; WOLF, C.J., Concurs in Result without Opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

David Michael Prickett appeals the order revoking his probation and consequent ten-year sentence. We reverse.

Proof that he spoke to a young woman under the age of eighteen while she was [534]*534working as a cashier in a grocery store did not establish a willful, substantial violation of the probation condition that he “have no unsupervised contact with minors.” See Smith v. State, 711 So.2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that the State must establish by the greater weight of the evidence that a defendant violated a term of his probation). For one thing, the State failed to prove that the cashier was not working under the supervision of the store manager. See Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding that, while a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a term of probation has been violated, findings of fact must rest on competent, substantial evidence).

Reversed and remanded with instructions that appellant be reinstated to probation.

BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., Concur; WOLF, C.J., Concurs in Result without Opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

895 So. 2d 533, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 3181, 2005 WL 548249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prickett-v-state-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack