Case Name: Itapura CARDOSO a/k/a Japura Jose Cardoso, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-10-12
Citations: 421 So. 2d 589
Docket Number: No. 82-176
Parties: Itapura CARDOSO a/k/a Japura Jose Cardoso, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before HUBBART, C.J., and BARK-DULL and NESBITT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 421
Pages: 589–590

Head Matter:
Itapura CARDOSO a/k/a Japura Jose Cardoso, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 82-176.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Oct. 12, 1982.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1982.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Paul Morris, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Marty Roth-enberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HUBBART, C.J., and BARK-DULL and NESBITT, JJ.

Opinion:
BARKDULL, Judge.
When there was evidence before a trial court in a probation violation proceeding that a defendant had the capacity to "understand" and the "intelligence" to be a "willing participant" in a Mentally Disordered Sex Offender Program and he had determined "not to cooperate" therein, a trial court will be sustained in revoking the defendant's probation.
The record in the instant case supports such a finding of willful failure on the part of the defendant to complete such a program which was a special condition of probation. Hines v. State, 358 So.2d 183 (Fla.1978); Brown v. State, 400 So.2d 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Ordonez v. State, 408 So.2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Postell v. State, 383 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Owens v. State, 354 So.2d 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
The appellant relied heavily on Donneil v. State 377 So.2d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) as controlling the instant case. We do not agree. It is clear from the Donneil case that the defendant was of limited capacity and was not able to comprehend the program to which he was assigned as a special condition of probation. In the instant case, all the witnesses agreed that the defendant in this cause, had the intelligence and the capacity to participate in the program; therefore, we find the cited case distinguishable on the facts. The orders revoking probation and sentence thereafter, are hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.