Wells v. State
Wells appealed revocation of his sex-offender probation, which was based on two violations: breaking curfew and failing to follow a probation officer's instruction not to wear a Halloween costume. The Fifth DCA affirmed the curfew violation but reversed the costume-related violation because the probation officer's instruction exceeded the court-ordered condition (which only prohibited specific costumes like Santa, Easter Bunny, or clown), and a probation officer cannot unilaterally create a new condition not imposed by the court. Because it was unclear whether the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same 22-year sentence based on the curfew violation alone, the case was remanded for reconsideration; the court also rejected Wells's Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause challenge to $401,500 in incarceration costs under section 960.293, relying on Goad's holding that such costs are civil, not punitive.
Key facts
- Wells, a sex offender on probation, was charged with two violations: breaking curfew and wearing a Halloween costume in violation of his probation conditions.
- The probation officer instructed Wells not to wear any Halloween costume, but the court-ordered condition only prohibited specific costumes (Santa, Easter Bunny, clown).
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This decision provides a useful, citable distinction between a court-imposed probation condition and a probation officer's supervisory gloss on that condition, reinforcing that officers cannot unilaterally narrow or… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.