VICTOR WILLIAMS vs STATE OF FLORIDA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED VICTOR WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D20-229 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed October 9, 2020 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County, Terence R. Perkins, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Phillip H. Arroyo, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. EVANDER, C.J., Victor Williams was convicted of having unlawful sexual activity with a minor.1 He was sentenced to eight years in prison followed by five years’ probation. The probation order included a special condition prohibiting Williams from having contact with a child 1 § 794.05(1), Fla. Stat. (2018). under the age of eighteen (subject to certain exceptions not applicable to this appeal). Williams challenged the imposition of this condition in a motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). In his motion, Williams argued that this condition of probation was overbroad. The trial court denied the motion. Williams raises one issue on appeal, contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion. We agree. This court has previously held that probation conditions forbidding any contact with minors are overly broad because they subject offenders to possible punishment for innocent or inadvertent conduct. See Stapler v. State, 190 So. 3d 162, 165 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Lamerton v. State, 78 So. 3d 686, 686 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012); Rowles v. State, 682 So. 2d 1184–85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Graham v. State, 658 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). On remand, the trial court should modify this condition of probation to prohibit only intentional contact with minors without court approval. See Stapler, 190 So. 3d at 165. REVERSED and REMANDED. WALLIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.