Goley v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. State

    776 So. 2d 329 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 4 times
    Affirming order revoking probation after appellant "failed to report at all"

    However, this court has previously stated that "[t]he failure to follow routine supervisory instructions given by a probation officer is a proper ground for revocation." Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139, 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). In this case, Brown not only failed to call in or to report on the day required, but he failed to report at all.

  2. Junk v. State

    230 So. 3d 984 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times
    Explaining that a trial court's finding of a substantial and willful violation of probation is reviewable on appeal for an abuse of discretion

    The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding of a substantial and willful violation of probation, describing the defendant's "failure to report at all" as showing " ‘a complete indifference to compliance with [the] conditions of probation.’ " Brown, 776 So.2d at 330 (quoting Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139, 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) ). On the facts presented, we need not evaluate separately whether Appellant's failure to report during the two months before the probation officer filed the affidavit of violation of probation constituted a separate violation or impacted the sentence imposed.

  3. Cruz v. State

    81 So. 3d 501 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that the probationer's violation of probation by leaving his approved residence—a tent pitched by an I–95 ramp—to use a nearby restroom was not a substantial violation and did not demonstrate that the probationer was unfit for probation

    Lopez v. State, 722 So.2d 936, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (internal citation omitted). In Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), after complying with prior instructions from his probation officer, Goley applied for authorization to travel. Id. at 140.

  4. Pittman v. State

    840 So. 2d 383 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

    AFFIRMED. See Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). THOMPSON, C.J., SAWAYA, and MONACO, JJ., concur.

  5. Kelly v. State

    729 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

    Without conflicting testimony from the community control officer, the State did not prove this violation. See Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Glenn v. State, 558 So.2d 513 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Reversed and remanded.

  6. Mathis v. State

    683 So. 2d 634 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 7 times

    The state argues that a probation officer has the authority to give routine supervisory instructions in order to implement the conditions of probation. Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Hutchinson v. State, 428 So.2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, when the supervisory instruction is premised on an invalid condition of probation (the defendant must obtain full time employment, even if there are no jobs available because of a recession) it cannot be a basis for a violation.

  7. Roff v. State

    644 So. 2d 166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 3 times

    Moreover, his failure to follow supervisory instructions given by his probation officer was a proper ground for revocation of probation. Goley v. State, 584 So.2d 139, 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Haynes v. State, 440 So.2d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Grimsley v. State, 408 So.2d 1075, 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Appellant further contends the trial court erred in denying appellant credit for gain-time earned on the earlier incarceration for the same offense. Appellee agrees the trial court erred.