Florida Court Decisions from Last Week
Last week the Florida Supreme Court rendered an opinion in Levandoski v. State a case that resolved the conflict between the 1st and 4th District Court of Appeals over whether ‘sex offender probation’ conditions had to be disclosed to the defendant at sentencing. The Supreme Court upheld the 4th DCA’s opinion that, “the court’s oral pronouncement that Levandoski would be subject to ‘sex offender probation’ was sufficient to impose each of the components contained in section 948.30″.
In other words, telling the defendant that he would be subject to ‘sex offender probation’ without detailing all the extra conditions that ‘sex offender probation’ is comprised of, is sufficient.
Two interesting items to point out in the decision. The opinion refers to the Statute which sets forth the conditions of ‘sex offender probation’ as “§ 948.30, Fla. Stat. (2010)” – 2010 being the year. As such, the court is alluding to the fact that the statute, in effect in 2010, when Levandoski was sentenced, was what he should look to when determining what his conditions of probation are. As we know; the 2010 version is different from the 2018 version, which has a lot of “extras” piled on.
Second, in the dissenting opinion, Justice Pariente, says, “this Court has made clear that “special conditions, which are those not specifically authorized by statute, must be orally pronounced at sentencing before they can be placed in the probation order.” Lawson, 969 So. 2d at 227 n.3. This requirement is a safeguard to protect the criminal defendant’s right to due process. “Because a defendant is not on notice of special conditions of probation, these conditions must be pronounced orally at sentencing in order to be included in the written probation order.” State v. Williams, 712 So. 2d 762, 764 (Fla. 1998).”
This raises an interesting point. New conditions and requirements that are added to the sex offender registry are imposed without any court determination as to whether an individual should be subject to them. Its the role of the courts to determine whether someone should be subject to a specific notification requirement or restriction that was not part of the statute when they were sentenced. This is something that will unquestionably be explored.
Another disturbing case decided by the 1st District Court of Appeal was Campbell v State which affirmed Campbell’s continued confinement and upheld the principal that, “Even assuming that no viable treatment is available for sexually violent predators, the Constitution does not prevent the State “from civilly detaining those for whom no treatment is available, but who nevertheless pose a danger to others.” Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. [346] at 366, 117 S. Ct. 2072 (1997)”
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I was convicted of a sexual offense and conditions of probation were not orally pronounced during sentencing. The judge just said ” probation ” and it was written and checked as probation in the order even though sex offender probation was an option right next to it, and the dept. of corrections had it down as probation as well…… yet, I had to do every condition that was required like as if I was sentenced to sex offender probation. I even had an attorney during my probation period (I wasn’t present) ask the same judge in an open session what he sentenced me to – just to clarify and he said ” regular probation ” yet I still had to follow the restrictions as if I was on sex offender probation. Whatever man, I already got out of that mess years ago.
By the way, the outcome of Campbell v State is indeed disturbing and horrifying. It is best to look and sound sane then.
It is amazing that this kind of treatment occurs at all in a country that talks so much about individual’s rights. Here is a nice article talking about sex offenders who have served their time, but are still kept locked up:
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/01/27/why-some-young-sex-offenders-are-held-indefinitely
The same civil commitment procedure is also available for federal sex crimes as well. If people think it could never happen to them or in their state, they should study history. Such systems worsen if reasonable people don’t fight against them.
Justice Pariente offers valuable insight, again. Levandoski needs to appeal this in the federal circuit now. I believe that is also what Pariente is telling him to do.
I am currently reading about the communists takeover in Romania. I find something in this article very similar to policies used by the communists…”no treatment” and “pose a danger to others”. While the communist policies were not aimed at sex offenders, they did permit the government to decide if a person was a ‘threat’ and determine there was no treatment available. Thousands rotted in government prisons under the same conditions. When we give the government 100% control over the lives of citizens without any concrete evidence or facts that is a very dangerous situation. At what point could speaking out against government policies concerning sex offenders be considered as posing a danger to the general public, beyond controlling, and worthy of being quieted? Please don’t think for one minute that we can stop monitoring the acts of our politicians…silence to them is approval and opposition is a threat to their power. Stay alert!
Can any of these court decisions be appealed?
yes
Yes, that is very disturbing. But the first case is interesting. Since any extra conditions of the registry were not pronounced to me at sentencing in June 2012, then according to the 4th DCA, they cannot be applied to me.
Another thing that needs to be considered is the fact that sex offender treatment programs are basically allowed to do whatever they want and impose whatever extra rules on us that they want and the probation officers will always defer to them because they are the “professionals.”
For example, my stupid program that I’ve been in for over 3 1/2 years now and will not be released from, even though I’ve finished all the requirements, is making us abide by a list of 18 extra rules that are not part of our probation. Some of these are: No drinking (probation says don’t drink in excess, but allows it), No dating anyone outside of 4 years of your age, No sexual contact (between consensual adults) without approval from therapist….Yes, this is one of our “rules”. Those are just a few examples. But again, if it’s not pronounced at sentencing, then it shouldn’t stick. This open-ended rule imposing on us, by every entity, needs to stop.
Reality is; if it’s not a condition of your probation or in the statute, you can’t get violated for it. If you don’t get your therapists approval before having sex, what sanction is there? If you will not (as you say) be released from treatment, what is the sanction?
be careful, it may not be a violation of probation, but could be a violation of treatment contract, which COULD lead to a violation of probation
Instead of being released he’ll be discharged at his therapists discretion for non-compliance with treatment rules.
Therapists have a wide berth to decide if violating a treatment rule is redeemable or cause for discharge and it is completely subjective.
You run afoul of probation when you’re discharged for not participating in treatment by not following the rules you agreed upon with your therapist. I know all of mine had me sign that contract before enrolling me in treatment.
@C–
You’re right. You hit the nail on the head. The PO’s and therapist ping pong off each other and defer to the other constantly. Neither one wants to be responsible for anything. I have finished all the projects I signed the paper saying I would complete to finish the program. I did the last one in January, and here I am in June and still in the program. It’s all about getting that money every week and NOTHING about helping us. My lawyer is about to file the motion for me to get off probation and the director of the therapy program is giving here a hard time and refuses to cooperate with her.
@FAC–
You are so right and that is good to know. If it’s NOT on paper in the probation orders or statutes, it cannot be enforced or sanctioned. The problem is, my probation order states that as a condition, I must “actively participate in and successfully complete a state certified sex offender therapy treatment program.” You can obviously see how open ended that statement is. The prosecution will always argue that whatever the condition is required of us in the therapy program falls under the umbrella of that probation order statement. And C is right, if you get kicked out of therapy, that causes a big problem for you with the PO. But I’ve always argued, OK, it says that I have to “successfully complete” a program. If I get kicked out of a program, I can still go to literally hundreds of other programs in the state to get treatment. So therefore, I can still follow the order, it’s just that I didn’t necessarily complete the program that I was just in. But I have plenty of other options to successfully complete a program and meet the order.
It’s insane. But these people just like to make the rules up as they go and leave everything open-ended so you’re stuck with them for as long as possible. The sad thing is, all of this is keeping me from my family and being able to help my widowed mother and to visit my 80 year-old grandparents because I’m stuck here dealing with this BS.
Sounds like you are in an ITM group. They have the contact with the state.
There are other providers out there, i highly recommend that you go elsewhere (If you have the money/ time left to finish the “program” before your probation term ends).
Regarding the extra rules? FAC states it correctly. You cannot have additional rules added to your terms of probation without a violation and hearing.
Case in point. Yesterday we travelled from Gainesville to Brevard to request internet access while on papers. The judge was very complimentary on the Pro-Se motion, BUT, she found that the therapist (ITM) was the one who wrote the evaluation and according to the law it cannot be your therapist but must be an independent third party to write the evaluation. Long story short, she allowed the motion to be withdrawn rather that denied and stated that NO ONE from the ITM Group could be the evaluator, PERIOD!
Also, the new here P/O is VERY unimpressed with ITM
@ Muriel
Depending on what year statutes are valid in the case, judges have no say over that anyway.
It all depends on the wording, like much of law, and some years it is written that after a certified therapist and the probation officers ok, the probationers use of the internet is valid. No court is necessary.
Oh btw, you don’t run afoul of probation for being discharged from a group given that you have the time to complete a course elsewhere.
However, should you not find another provider soon thereafter you run that risk.
Read your conditions of probation, it states that you will complete a therapy group before your period of probation ends. It does not state any specific provider.
All of this advice about required therapy is meant to be helpful. However, your probation and/or parole agent has been granted the authority to oversee all aspects of your probation. If he or she tells you which program you will enroll in, that is the one you MUST use. No sense arguing about it. Every probation order requires you to follow the instructions of the agent. Period. None of us like it, but you HAVE to play their game or risk ending up in prison.
I’d rather be back in prison than continue being a pawn in their little game. Which is why I got a lawyer to file a motion for early termination. I plan on beating them at their own game. If they wanna get embarrassed by my lawyer in front of the judge because they won’t release me from therapy after I finished all the requirements, then so be it.
I also did the therapy in Jacksonville Dr.Vallely.. there was so much brought up that was not discussed as part of sentencing.. but I was lucky and flew through therapy.. my probation officer said I’m the only person they ever seen finish therapy in a year. I said yes because I don’t belong here and got forced to take a plea deal that was never explained, by a attorney that I find out later practices family law and dui law.. never a sex crime.. what a Joke!!!