238 So. 3d 294
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2018Background
- Harrington pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual activity with a child, received concurrent 10-year sentences in 1998, served ~8 years, then was released on probation with a condition to complete sexual-offender treatment.
- After six years in his initial program, Harrington was transferred in 2013 to CORTE, a weekly group treatment program led by Dr. Johnson, which used monthly progress reports with ratings from Excellent to Poor.
- Early in CORTE Harrington showed limited participation and received marginal/poor ratings, but then improved to satisfactory for six consecutive months with contemporaneous reports noting increasing engagement.
- During the final six weeks of enrollment Harrington regressed after a clinically significant event (his father’s death) and disputes about the therapist’s handling; Dr. Johnson discharged him for willful treatment resistance and disruptive conduct.
- The trial court found Harrington willfully and substantially violated probation based primarily on Dr. Johnson’s testimony and progress reports, revoked probation, and — without a separate sentencing hearing — imposed a ~42-year prison sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Harrington) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harrington willfully and substantially violated probation by failing to complete treatment | Failure was not willful; regression linked to bereavement and therapist mishandling; he made reasonable efforts | He was superficially engaged, resistant, disruptive, and was discharged for willful resistance | Court affirmed: competent, substantial evidence supported willful and substantial violation (trial court credited Dr. Johnson) |
| Whether the court may impose sentence without a separate post-revocation sentencing hearing | Argues he was entitled to an opportunity to be heard as to sentence and mitigation | State did not dispute requirement for a sentencing opportunity | Court held sentencing hearing was required and reversed that portion of the order; remanded for a second-stage hearing to decide revoke/modify/continue and, if revoking, impose sentence with reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (probation-violation proof standard)
- Mata v. State, 31 So. 3d 257 (preponderance required for probation violation)
- Oertel v. State, 82 So. 3d 152 (competent, substantial evidence review of bench findings)
- Acoustic Innovations, Inc. v. Schafer, 976 So. 2d 1139 (deference to trial court on witness credibility)
- Rainer v. State, 657 So. 2d 1230 (failure to complete program requires showing probationer responsible)
- Odom v. State, 15 So. 3d 672 (reasonable efforts preclude willful violation)
- Thomas v. State, 672 So. 2d 587 (effort to comply affects willfulness)
- Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619 (two-step probation revocation framework)
- In re Estate of Sterile, 902 So. 2d 915 (deference to trial court factfinding)
- Grace v. State, 198 So. 3d 945 (standard of review for revocation)
- M.A.L. v. State, 110 So. 3d 493 (revocation discretion)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222 (trial court power over probation)
- State ex rel. Roberts v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 597 (probation revocation not arbitrary)
- Estevez v. State, 705 So. 2d 972 (Black two-step: violation fact-finding then discretionary sentencing)
- Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (due process requires opportunity to be heard on sentence)
- Scull v. State, 569 So. 2d 1251 (probationer must have sentencing opportunity)
- McCloud v. State, 653 So. 2d 453 (informal but reasonable opportunity to be heard)
- De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So. 2d 912 (competent substantial evidence suffices)
- Defrank v. State, 886 So. 2d 253 (written reasons required when revoking probation)