Filmore v. State
133 So. 3d 1188
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Filmore pleaded guilty to multiple charges; court suspended lengthy prison terms and placed him on concurrent community control terms with strict conditions, including remaining at his approved residence except for limited approved activities and following a weekly schedule set by his community control officer (CCO).
- CCO instructed Filmore on conditions on Jan 11, 2013; on Jan 16 the CCO filed an affidavit alleging Filmore was away from his approved residence at 6:10 p.m. without approval and failed to follow instructions to follow his schedule.
- Filmore, unemployed but newly hired, overslept and called the CCO’s office (no answer), then left his apartment for about 5–10 minutes to pick up his child (and possibly a neighbor’s child) from an on-site childcare/after-school center in the adjacent building; he did not leave the apartment complex.
- The CCO arrived while he was gone, saw neighbors with the children, left for the nearby police substation, returned within minutes, arrested Filmore, and he remained jailed for 43 days before the revocation hearing.
- At the hearing testimony contained minor inconsistencies about details (identity/number of children, exact statements), but principal facts were undisputed: Filmore briefly left the residence to pick up children after oversleeping and returned quickly; the State offered no evidence of a pattern of violations.
- Trial court found the violation willful and substantial, revoked community control, and imposed concurrent prison terms; the court stated a per se rule that any violation by someone convicted of a first-degree felony punishable by life is willful and substantial.
Issues
| Issue | Filmore's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Filmore’s brief, out-of-window absence was a willful and substantial violation of community control | The absence was a short, necessary act to pick up children after oversleeping; at most negligence, not a substantial willful violation; return to supervision appropriate | Filmore left his approved residence without approval and disobeyed instructions to follow his schedule; therefore revocation warranted | Reversed: absence was not shown to be substantial; revocation was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether a per se rule that any violation by a defendant convicted of a first-degree felony punishable by life is substantial is permissible | Implicitly argued court must assess violations case-by-case; no per se rule | Trial court applied blanket rule that any violation by such offenders is willful and substantial | Per se rule is improper; trial court abused discretion by applying it without case-specific findings |
| Whether negligence/isolated misconduct can justify revocation | Single instance of negligence (oversleeping) is insufficient to show unfitness for community control | Assertion that violation was willful and violated conditions | Court held negligence/one-time lapse does not automatically justify revocation; must be willful and substantial |
| Whether State proved pattern or other evidence supporting severity of violation | No pattern or aggravating evidence presented | Argues violation itself supports revocation | Insufficient evidence of pattern; State failed to show violation indicated community control would not work |
Key Cases Cited
- Anthony v. State, 854 So.2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (revocation requires willful and substantial violation supported by greater weight of evidence)
- State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259 (Fla. 2002) (probation should be revoked only when violation is willful and substantial)
- Brown v. State, 86 So.3d 1225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (curfew/technical violations require case-specific analysis; blanket findings are abuse of discretion)
- Garcia v. State, 701 So.2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (negligent or inept conduct alone does not support revocation)
- Correa v. State, 43 So.3d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (community control is rehabilitative, not purely punitive; conditions aim to prevent new violations)