Filed: Apr. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D18-3773 _ KEVIN MARCUS BOYD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Phillip A. Pena, Judge. April 22, 2019 PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges the trial court’s order modifying his probation because he contends the State failed to put forward evidence that he willfully violated two conditions. We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant willfully violated his probation by ignorin
Summary: FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D18-3773 _ KEVIN MARCUS BOYD, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Phillip A. Pena, Judge. April 22, 2019 PER CURIAM. Appellant challenges the trial court’s order modifying his probation because he contends the State failed to put forward evidence that he willfully violated two conditions. We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant willfully violated his probation by ignoring..
More
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D18-3773
_____________________________
KEVIN MARCUS BOYD,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
Phillip A. Pena, Judge.
April 22, 2019
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the trial court’s order modifying his
probation because he contends the State failed to put forward
evidence that he willfully violated two conditions. We affirm the
trial court’s finding that appellant willfully violated his probation
by ignoring his financial obligation.
However, we find the trial court erred in finding appellant
willfully violated the condition of his probation requiring him to
maintain either full-time employment or full-time education.
Such a provision is invalid as a matter of law unless it provides a
“good faith effort” exception. See Aviles v. State,
165 So. 3d 841,
843 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (holding that a full-time employment
condition of probation was invalid because it did not contain an
exception if factors outside of the probationer’s control could
prevent completion of the requirement); see also Silas v. State,
208 So. 3d 1289, 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding that a
condition of probation requiring a probationer to obtain a GED
was invalid because it did not provide a “good faith effort”
exception).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the trial court’s order modifying
appellant’s probation but REMAND for entry of a corrected
modification order. See Redd v. State,
204 So. 3d 558, 559 (Fla.
4th DCA 2016).
WOLF, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public
Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daniel Krumbholz,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2