Early Termination of Probation or Community Control

This article summarizes the law of sentencing pertaining to early termination of probation  or community control in Florida state courts.

Hon. William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

July 10, 2024

Early termination of supervision is a tool used to encourage good behavior and faithful compliance with the terms of probation or community control.  There is, however, no statutory or constitutional prohibition precluding a trial court from requiring a defendant to complete a full term of probation or community control.

Motion for Early Termination

When presented with a motion for early termination of probation or community control, the court is required to afford the movant procedural due process.  At a minimum, the court must consider the motion and exercise its discretion in granting or denying the motion.  In a case where the parties have entered into a plea agreement that sets forth a specific length of supervision, the court cannot avoid the issue by concluding that it lacks authority to consider the motion.¹

Revocation of Probation or Community Control—Failure to Pay Court-Ordered Costs or Restitution

 Hon. William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

Generally

Trial courts have the power to provide, as a condition of probation or community control, that the defendant pay reasonable sums for court costs¹ and other costs to the state (e.g., attorney’s fees for the services of a public defender),² costs of supervision,³ and restitution⁴ under the broad grant of authority contained in section 948.03, Fla. Stat.  The decision to place a defendant on supervision reflects a determination by the sentencing court that the State’s penological interests do not require imprisonment.⁵  In any event, a probationer’s or community controllee’s failure to make reasonable efforts to repay his or her debt to society may indicate that the original determination needs reevaluation, and imprisonment may now be required to satisfy the State’s interests,⁶ and so supervision can be revoked for failure to comply with such a condition.

This power is qualified by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that the statutory ceiling placed on imprisonment for any substantive offense be the same for all defendants irrespective of their economic status.  The State therefor cannot imprison a defendant for nonvoluntary failure to pay a fine, court costs, or restitution without violating the equal protection clause.⁷  Likewise, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.⁸  Sentencing a defendant to imprisonment solely because he or she could not pay a fine, court costs, or restitution, without considering the reasons for the inability to pay or the propriety of reducing the amount to be paid, extending the time for payments, or making alternative orders, is automatically converting monetary such obligations into imprisonment and is constitutionally impermissible.⁹  The requirement that a defendant may be found in willful violation of a supervisory condition to make money payments only if he or she is or could reasonably be financially in a position to do so is one of constitutional dimensions and cannot be waived by the defendant.¹⁰

Judicial Discretion In the Imposition of Sentence—Conditions of Confinement

Hon. William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

A sentencing court lacks jurisdiction and authority to regulate the treatment and placement of sentenced prison inmates absent specific statutory authority, and cannot impose increased sanctions pertaining to confinement, such as loss of privileges.  This rule applies to county jails as well as to facilities run by the Department of Corrections.¹

Once a trial court has pronounced sentence and entered a judgment of conviction, it relinquishes jurisdiction over the matter to the executive branch, except for the appellate process and to the extent that regular procedures allow the matter to be reopened in a judicial forum for limited purposes that can be achieved only in court.  Just as the executive branch of government may not intrude on the judiciary’s duties in the sentencing process, so is the judicial branch limited in its role thereafter as the sentence is executed.²

Confrontation, Due process, and the Use of Hearsay: The Florida Evidence Code Was Not Meant to Apply to Sentencing

Hon. William H. Burgess, III, B.C.S.

Accuracy and integrity of fact-finding in criminal sentencing is determined by the burden of proof, the reliability of the underlying evidence, and the opportunity for review and response. The balance of these factors promotes fairness in the individual case and in the overall pattern of sentences over time. Such accuracy is not an absolute in every type of case, however, but is measured against the requirements of the law applicable in the circumstances. Generally, the more severe the potential sanction, the higher the degree of accuracy and reliability of the evidence required to impose the sanction.