Rush v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rush v. State

213 So. 3d 1011, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12193

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 12, 2016

DocketNos. 1D15-4631, 1D15-4791

StatusPublished

This text of 213 So. 3d 1011 (Rush 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

Rush v. State, 213 So. 3d 1011, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12193 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Lydia Ann Rush appeals from the trial court’s order revoking her probation and imposing a prison sentence following the court’s finding that she willfully and substantially violated a condition of her probation. Appellant argues that the evidence does not support a finding that her violation was willful, and the record supports her argument. Furthermore, the State concedes error. See State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259, 261 (Fla.2002) (“Trial courts must consider each violation on a case-by-case basis for a determination of whether, under the facts and circumstances, a particular violation is willful and substantial and is supported by the greater weight of the evidence.”); Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (‘Where a probationer makes reasonable efforts to comply with a condition of probation, violation of the condition cannot be deemed ‘willful.’ ”). Accordingly, we re[1012]*1012verse and remand for Appellant’s probation to be reinstated.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Lydia Ann Rush appeals from the trial court’s order revoking her probation and imposing a prison sentence following the court’s finding that she willfully and substantially violated a condition of her probation. Appellant argues that the evidence does not support a finding that her violation was willful, and the record supports her argument. Furthermore, the State concedes error. See State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259, 261 (Fla.2002) (“Trial courts must consider each violation on a case-by-case basis for a determination of whether, under the facts and circumstances, a particular violation is willful and substantial and is supported by the greater weight of the evidence.”); Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (‘Where a probationer makes reasonable efforts to comply with a condition of probation, violation of the condition cannot be deemed ‘willful.’ ”). Accordingly, we re[1012]*1012verse and remand for Appellant’s probation to be reinstated.

B.L. THOMAS, ROWE, and WINSOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 So. 3d 1011, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 12193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rush-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack