The Third Appellate District affirmed a judgment as modified. The court held that it was unnecessary to determine whether an otherwise properly imposed condition of probation was, as drafted, either too vague or overbroad when the probationer’s violation of the condition was knowing and would have been found to have occurred regardless of proper drafting.
Eighteen-year old Matthew Urke was charged with having inappropriately touched several of his younger sisters’ friends while they visited the house. The victims ranged in age from seven or eight to 15. Urke pleaded guilty to one count of committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 and was placed on eight years’ formal probation. As a condition to probation, Urke was prohibited from being “in the presence of any minor under the age of 18 without a responsible adult present that ha[d] been previously approved by [Urke’s] probation officer, except [his] own siblings.”
