Hugan v. State
190 So. 3d 210
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Royan L. Hugan pleaded nolo contendere to carrying a concealed firearm and received one year of community control with adjudication withheld.
- A violation affidavit alleged Hugan was not at home during a compliance check on April 2, 2015; community control prohibited being away except for approved work shifts.
- The community control officer testified he knocked on Hugan’s door around midnight and received no answer; officer admitted he had information Hugan was working but did not confirm with the employer.
- Hugan testified he was approved to work 11 a.m.–8 p.m., then accepted overtime 8 p.m.–7 a.m., tried to call his officer (possibly left message on wrong number), and the State did not dispute he was at work during the check.
- The trial court found a willful and substantial violation, revoked community control, adjudicated guilt, and imposed a ten-month jail sentence; appellate court reviewed for competent substantial evidence and abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hugan’s absence from home was a willful and substantial violation of community control | State: absence was unapproved and thus a substantial, willful violation | Hugan: absence was for approved work (overtime) and failure to get express approval was negligent, not willful | Reversed: not proved as substantial and willful; revocation was abuse of discretion |
| Whether negligence in failing to notify officer can support revocation | State: lack of prior approval suffices for revocation | Hugan: negligence/ineptitude insufficient for violation | Court: negligence does not support revocation; technical breaches alone are insufficient |
| Whether collateral consequences render appeal nonmoot despite sentence served | State: implied position contesting mootness | Hugan: appeal not moot due to collateral consequences | Court: appeal not moot; collateral consequences justify review |
| Appropriate remedy after unlawful revocation | State: sought enforcement of revocation | Hugan: vacate sentence, reinstate but immediately terminate community control | Court: reverse revocation, vacate jail sentence, reinstate then immediately terminate community control |
Key Cases Cited
- Filmore v. State, 133 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (technical breach outside approved time is not necessarily substantial and willful)
- Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (standard of review for revocation findings)
- Garcia v. State, 701 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (negligence or ineptitude does not establish violation)
- Molina v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (technical probation failures not necessarily substantial and willful)
- Riddle v. State, 755 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (inept or negligent conduct insufficient for willful violation)
- Stevens v. State, 599 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (same principle regarding negligence vs willfulness)
- Bush v. State, 135 So. 3d 1108 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (collateral consequences can keep an appeal live despite completed sentence)