Background
David Wayne White appealed the Brevard County circuit court’s denial of a motion for postconviction relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 and a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Rule 3.800.
White raised five grounds for relief. During his sentencing hearing, the court referenced a No Contact List, but the list was never provided to White. A no-contact order was a condition of his probation.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed the denial of relief on all five grounds. The opinion does not detail the grounds or the court’s reasoning for rejecting each one.
The court nevertheless remanded for the trial court to disclose the referenced No Contact List and revise the probation condition accordingly. Requiring White to comply with a no-contact condition without knowing everyone covered by the list risked inadvertent violations. The court cited Rowles v. State for the need to clarify a vague and overly broad no-contact order.
Key Takeaways
- The denial of White’s Rule 3.850 and Rule 3.800 motions was affirmed in full.
- A probationer must be given the contents of a referenced no-contact list.
- Probation conditions should be sufficiently clear to avoid inadvertent violations.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even when postconviction claims fail, appellate courts may require clarification of probation conditions that are not adequately disclosed to the defendant. A no-contact condition cannot fairly be enforced against someone who lacks the list of people they must avoid.