Boyd v. StateBoyd v. State
We affirm the trial court‘s order revoking appellant‘s probation. See Rawlins v. State, 711 So.2d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (concluding that a judge may find that two unexcused absences from a treatment program may indeed amount to a material violation of probation). The cases primarily relied upon by appellant, Bingham v. State, 655 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), and Washington v. State, 667 So.2d 255 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), do not support reversal. In those cases, this court could find no evidence that the respective probationers had willfully and substantially violated the terms of their probation. The present case is different.
The terms of appellant‘s probation required that he continue the drug treatment program he was currently enrolled in. The affidavit of violation alleged that appellant violated this condition. The affidavit of violation, and the evidence presented at the hearing, established that appellant missed his outpatient appointments in April 1998 and June 1998, some two and
AFFIRMED.
WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., CONCUR.