CLARK v. STATE (2020)

Appellant was on probation for several drug offenses and, as a condition of probation, had a curfew between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. One night when his girlfriend came home after work, they went to the store for work supplies. They left at 11:15 p.m. and were stopped by deputies at 1:40 a.m. In revoking appellant's probation, the trial court found that he violated his probation by being out at 11:15 p.m. He argues on appeal that this was not a substantial violation of probation, but we disagree. See Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla 4th DCA 1998) (“Absence from the home without permission supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation of community control.”). In this case, unlike others, there was no emergency, and the absence was not for a short period of time. Appellant was out for almost four hours in the middle of the night.

While appellant also argues that the trial court did not find that the violation was a willful and substantial violation, at the revocation hearing the trial court found the violation was willful. At sentencing the court also stated that appellant had violated probation in a “material” way. We conclude that a statement that the violation is “material” is the equivalent to stating that it is “substantial.” In the sense that “material” is used here, the dictionary defines it as “having real importance or great consequence.” Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ material (last visited October 15, 2020) (emphasis added). “Substantial” is defined as “real, true” and “important, essential.” Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/substantial (last visited October 15, 2020) (emphasis added). As the definitions are essentially the same, the court made the necessary findings in order to revoke probation.

Affirmed.

Warner, Gerber and Artau, JJ., concur.

Per Curiam.