Rousey v. State, 226 So. 3d 1015

Background

Appellant Mark Rousey, previously convicted of lewd or lascivious offenses, was serving concurrent community-control sentences after prior probation revocations in two Polk County cases.
Rousey had permission from his community control officer (CCO) to go to a cellphone store to repair his phone and to stop for gas when needed; he was required to be home by 1:00 p.m.
On the day in question, Rousey spent ~50 minutes at the cellphone store, then stopped for gas at 1:03 p.m.; his nephew’s car would not restart, leaving them stranded at the gas station for ~46 minutes.
Rousey’s GPS showed he returned home at 1:48 p.m.; the electronic-monitoring center sent alerts when he was late and he acknowledged a monitor message but did not immediately call the CCO because he and his nephew lacked working phones.
The State alleged willful and substantial violations of conditions requiring confinement to his approved residence and compliance with electronic monitoring; the trial court revoked community control and imposed prison terms.
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding the evidence did not establish a willful and substantial violation because Rousey made reasonable efforts and the delay was due to negligence/ineptitude, not willful noncompliance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rousey willfully and substantially violated community control by returning late from an approved activity	State: Rousey knowingly failed to return by the approved time and ignored monitoring alerts, showing willful noncompliance	Rousey: He had permission for the activity and stopping for gas; delay caused by vehicle trouble and lack of phone, not willful conduct	Reversed: Delay was at worst negligence/ineptitude; not a willful and substantial violation
Whether failure to immediately respond to electronic-monitoring alerts constitutes refusal to follow monitoring rules	State: Failure to call back and delayed response shows refusal to follow monitoring rules	Rousey: He lacked a working phone while stranded and acknowledged the monitor; lacked ability to promptly respond	Held for Rousey: No evidence he could have promptly responded; not willful refusal
Whether evidence supported revocation and prison sentences	State: Monitoring data and missed curfew supported revocation and incarceration	Rousey: Monitoring data consistent with authorized stops and unforeseeable car trouble; supervision should remain	Revocation reversed; supervisory sentences reinstated
Standard for willfulness on supervision violations	State: Argues court properly applied willful-and-substantial standard based on missed deadline and alerts	Rousey: Argues standard requires failure to make reasonable efforts; his efforts suffice	Court affirmed that willfulness requires failure to make reasonable efforts and found none here

Key Cases Cited

Hugan v. State, 190 So. 3d 210 (Fla. 2d DCA) (standard: revocation requires greater weight showing of substantial and willful violation)
Filmore v. State, 133 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA) (distinguishing approved activity performed outside allowed time window)
Robinson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA) (revocation review standard)
Brown v. State, 813 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA) (probation revocation principles)
Hicks v. State, 890 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 2d DCA) (willfulness requires failure to make reasonable efforts)
Benedict v. State, 774 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2d DCA) (same)
Jacobsen v. State, 536 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 2d DCA) (same)
Scott v. State, 485 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA) (same)
Thomas v. State, 672 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA) (flat tire/curfew case reversing revocation for non-willful delay)
Stevens v. State, 599 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA) (discussion of willful versus negligent probation violations)
Boatwright v. State, 847 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA) (reversal where extended delay had nonwillful cause)
Hern v. State, 747 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA) (late curfew due to missed bus not willful)