Brown v. State
86 So. 3d 1225
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Brown was convicted of lewd and lascivious molestation of a 15-year-old and placed on five years’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation.
- After serving the incarceration, Brown began probation on November 26, 2008.
- On July 21, 2010, Brown was late to a curfew check by approximately 25–30 minutes while out to pick up job applications.
- The probation officer found no illegal activity and prepared a probation-violation affidavit for being out past curfew; Brown surrendered when advised.
- At the revocation hearing, Brown had nearly two years of compliant probation; he admitted the curfew violation but argued it was insubstantial.
- The trial court found a willful and substantial violation and sentenced Brown to 13 years; the appeal ensued.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probation revocation was supported by willful, substantial violation | Brown argues the violation was insubstantial given compliance history. | State argues the curfew breach was a serious, willful violation warranting revocation. | Probation revocation reversed; violation not substantial enough. |
| Whether the State failed to prove by greater weight of the evidence | Brown contends the burden was greater weight of the evidence and not met. | State contends it proved a willful, substantial violation. | Trial court failed to meet correct burden; court abused discretion. |
| Whether the trial court applied a per se rule against probationers for curfew violations | Court treated all curfew breaches as extremely serious regardless of context. | State did not argue per se; focus was on willfulness and substantiality. | Per se rule was improper; proper case-by-case analysis required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthony v. State, 854 So.2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (burden and standard for probation revocation; greater weight of the evidence)
- State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2002) (abuse of discretion review; avoid per se conclusions)
- Ortiz v. State, 54 So.3d 1020 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reinstating probation where violation did not show unfitness)
- Pic N’ Save Cent. Fla., Inc. v. Dep’t of Bus. Reg., 601 So.2d 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (distinction between burden of proof and factual findings; evidence standard)