Roger E. Algiere v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJanuary 6, 2021
Docket2D19-3576
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING
MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ROGER EUGENE ALGIERE, )
)
Appellant, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2D19-3576
)
STATE OF FLORIDA, )
)
Appellee. )
___________________________________)
Opinion filed January 6, 2021.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for
Hillsborough County; Nick Nazaretian,
Judge.
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender,
and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Public
Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and James Hellickson,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for
Appellee.
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Roger Eugene Algiere appeals the order revoking his sexual offender
probation for two counts of attempted sexual battery (victim less than twelve years of
age) and two counts of sexual battery (familial authority) and the resulting concurrent
sentences of forty years in prison with credit for time served and all prior prison credit.
As to Algiere's argument that the State failed to prove a willful and substantial violation
of probation (VOP) for unsupervised contact with a child, we affirm without discussion
the revocation and sentences. However, we remand for the trial court to enter an
amended revocation order reflecting that Algiere violated condition 71, not condition 19,
of his probation.
An amended VOP affidavit alleged that Algiere violated condition 19 of his
probation by having unsupervised contact with a thirteen-year-old child, Y.R. The
revocation order lists condition 19 as the condition violated. But condition 19 of the
supervision order states, "You will participate in self-improvement programs as
determined by the Court or your officer." At the revocation hearing, Algiere's probation
officer testified that the condition prohibiting contact with children was condition 71 and
read it into the record. Algiere did not object to the testimony as to his violation of
condition 71, and he presented a defense to the violation. The court announced that it
found Algiere in violation "for the unsupervised contact with the child," but the court did
not state the condition violated. Algiere did not object to the court's failure to identify the
condition that he had violated or the fact that the amended VOP affidavit alleged a
violation of condition 19 rather than condition 71.
We reject Algiere's challenge as to the State's proof of a willful and
substantial violation of probation. Algiere had notice of the conduct alleged of
unsupervised contact with Y.R., a child, and defended the violation at a hearing. Under
similar circumstances, the allegation of a different condition did not preclude the
revocation of probation based on the condition that the State actually proved:
When a defendant's probation is revoked based on an
affidavit which alleges a violation with less-than-exacting
-2-
precision but which nonetheless puts the defendant on
notice of the misconduct of which he is accused, as is the
case here, the deficiency is considered harmless so long as
the State offers sufficient evidence that the defendant is
guilty of the conduct (although not necessarily the condition)
actually alleged in the affidavit.
Quijano v. State, 270 So. 3d 549, 551 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). In Quijano, the State
alleged a violation of condition 21 of Quijano's sex offender probation for possessing
pornographic material, and the trial court found a violation of condition 21. Id. at 550.
On appeal, Quijano argued that the evidence failed to show that the pornographic
material was related to his pattern of deviant behavior, a requirement of condition 21.
Id. The State asserted that the evidence proved a violation of condition 33 "which
prohibit[ed] him from possessing pornographic material at all." Id.
This court determined that "Quijano had notice of the conduct alleged to
violate his probation, his ability to prepare a defense to those charges was not
prejudiced, and the State offered sufficient evidence to prove that he was guilty of the
conduct alleged." Id. at 552. This court affirmed the revocation of probation but
remanded for entry of a revocation order showing a violation of condition 33 rather than
condition 21. Id. at 552-53.
In addition, in Washington v. State, 228 So. 3d 707 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017),
this court affirmed a revocation when the wrong condition number was alleged. There,
the affidavit alleged that Washington violated condition 15 for failing to remain at his
approved residence, but it was condition 16 that required Washington to remain at his
approved residence. Id. at 707-08. The State established at the hearing that
Washington was away from his approved residence without permission, and the trial
court found him in violation on that basis, a condition 16 violation. Id. at 708. This
-3-
court affirmed a revocation of supervision but remanded for the trial court to correct the
revocation order to show "that Washington was actually found in violation of condition
16." Id.
Here, Algiere was aware that he was alleged to have had unsupervised
contact with a child, Y.R. Although the amended affidavit alleged unsupervised contact
with a child under the age of eighteen and condition 71 prohibited unsupervised contact
with any child under the age of sixteen, Y.R. was well under the age of sixteen, and it
was alleged in the affidavit that she was thirteen. Algiere defended the violation, calling
his brother to testify as a witness. The probation officer plainly read condition 71 at the
revocation hearing, and Algiere did not object. The trial court found Algiere in violation
based on the unsupervised contact with Y.R.
Under these circumstances, we affirm the revocation of probation and
resulting sentences and remand for entry of an amended revocation order to reflect a
violation of condition 71 instead of condition 19. See Quijano, 270 So. 3d at 550. We
also direct that the order be amended on remand to the extent that it inaccurately states
that Algiere admitted the violation. See Torres v. State, 244 So. 3d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2018).
Affirmed and remanded with directions.
VILLANTI and SLEET, JJ., Concur.
-4-