Rowles v. State

682 So. 2d 1184, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2393
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 8, 1996
Docket96-347
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 682 So. 2d 1184 (Rowles 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
Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2393 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

682 So.2d 1184 (1996)

Robert ROWLES, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 96-347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

November 8, 1996.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Sean K. Ahmed, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anthony J. Golden, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

W. SHARP, Judge.

We affirm Rowles' conviction and sentence for committing a lewd, lascivious or indecent act on a child[1] in all regards, except for the special condition of probation that he have no contact with a female child under the age of sixteen years, unless that child's parent or legal guardian is present. The wording of this condition may subject Rowles to unintentional violation should he subsequently be *1185 inadvertently placed in a work or social situation where young girls are present, without their parents or guardians. See Graham v. State, 658 So.2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Lambert v. State, 635 So.2d 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). We remand this cause to the trial court to revisit and refashion this condition, in order to minimize any inadvertent violation. Perhaps a condition that prohibits intentional, unsupervised contact with a female child under age sixteen, where no adult is present, would suffice.

AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED to revise condition of probation.

GOSHORN, J., concurs.

COBB, J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.

COBB, Judge, concurring in part; dissenting in part.

I would simply affirm in all respects based on Graham v. State, 658 So.2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).

NOTES

[1] § 800.04(1), Fla. Stat. (1995).

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

Related

Brandon Stapler v. State
190 So. 3d 162 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
LAMERTON v. State
78 So. 3d 686 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Manon v. State
740 So. 2d 1253 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Matthews v. State
736 So. 2d 72 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
McGuire v. State
720 So. 2d 268 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Woods v. State
711 So. 2d 1182 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Wagland v. State
705 So. 2d 1016 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)
Duer v. State
701 So. 2d 1273 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
L.G. v. State
702 So. 2d 1337 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Swatzell v. State
691 So. 2d 594 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
682 So. 2d 1184, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowles-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.