Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Buckins v. State
Citations: 789 So. 2d 1184; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 9819; 2001 WL 802908Docket: No. 4D00-2529
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 18, 2001; Florida; State Appellate Court
Willie James Buckins appeals the revocation of his probation, citing improper revocation due to a lack of written specification for condition number five and insufficient evidence for a violation of condition number fourteen. The court agrees with Buckins regarding the inadequacy of proof for condition fourteen but remands for correction of the judgment's grounds for revocation. In 1998, Buckins pled nolo contendere to aggravated assault and battery, receiving a sentence of six months in prison followed by drug offender probation and time served on battery. Condition five prohibited legal violations, while condition fourteen mandated completion of a batterers intervention program. In October 1999, his probation was extended after a violation of condition fourteen. The state later alleged violations of both conditions when Buckins tested positive for cocaine. Although a random urinalysis condition was not included in the written probation order, it was orally communicated. Evidence at the hearing included Buckins' acknowledgment of the conditions and his positive drug test. Buckins completed an anger management course as part of another program, but his request to substitute this for the batterers program had not been approved by the court. The probation officer indicated that Buckins was in violation of condition fourteen due to the pending modification request. Ultimately, the court found Buckins violated both conditions, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to 23.4 months in prison. The court held that a probationer cannot contest conditions after a revocation based on a violation of those conditions. Buckins accepted the condition of submitting to random urinalysis by complying with monthly tests and was informed that failing a test would violate probation condition number five. Consequently, he cannot contest the conviction for violating this condition. However, the trial court wrongly determined that he willfully and substantially violated condition number fourteen by not completing a batterers intervention program. Revocation for failing to attend such a program requires evidence of willful failure, not mere negligence. Buckins had not enrolled in the program due to awaiting a court ruling on a modification request to substitute it with a comparable CARP anger management program. His delay appeared to be based on negligence rather than willful disregard, leading to the conclusion that he did not willfully violate condition fourteen. Although condition fourteen's violation was minimal, he materially and willfully violated condition five, justifying the revocation of probation. The court affirmed the revocation for condition five but reversed and remanded the decision regarding condition fourteen, directing the removal of this ground from the written judgment. Oral sentencing pronouncements take precedence over written orders when inconsistencies arise.