ALTON H. COLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE, OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Alton Coley appealed his revocation of community control and five-year prison sentence, arguing that the revocation order failed to specify the conditions violated and that the trial court imposed an erroneous sentence without properly considering sentencing guidelines. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal held that revocation orders for community control must list the specific conditions violated, and that the trial court must know and consider the presumptive guidelines sentence before departing from it.
Orders revoking community control must list the specific conditions which have been violated, just as probation violation orders must. A trial court cannot properly depart from the sentencing guidelines without considering the presumptive guidelines sentence applicable to the defendant.
[1] An order revoking community control must list the specific conditions that were violated.
[2] Orders of violation of community control are treated the same as orders of violation of probation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The two sanctions, both non-incarcerative dispositions, are functionally the same [...] There is no reason to treat orders of violation of community control any differently than orders of violation of probation.”
Establishes the legal principle that community control and probation revocations must have the same procedural requirements, including specification of violated conditions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceColey pled nolo contendere on May 16, 1984, to charges of burglary and grand theft and received two years of community control. He was subsequently ch…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
HALL, Judge.
Appellant raises several issues in this appeal. We find merit in only two of those issues.
Appellant pled nolo contendere on May 16, 1984, to the charges of burglary and grand theft and was placed on two years’ community control. Appellant was subsequently charged with violating the conditions of his community control, and on October 19, 1984, the trial court revoked his community control sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment on each count. The order revoking appellant’s community control failed to list the conditions of community control which were violated, and appellant contends that the order is therefore defective. He reasons that in a violation of probation order the court is required to list the violations and that this requirement should also apply to orders of community control.
We agree. The two sanctions, both non-incarcerative dispositions, are functionally the same. Boldes v. State, 475 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). There is no reason to treat orders of violation of community control any differently than orders of violation of probation.
Accordingly, we hold that order revoking community control must list the conditions which have been violated.
As to the second issue, appellant contends that the court imposed an erroneous sentence under the guidelines. Although at sentencing the state proclaimed that appellant’s scoresheet placed him in the guidelines range of four and one-half to five and one-half years, the scoresheet in the record places him in the guidelines range of either community control or twelve to thirty months’ incarceration. Also, the trial court stated that it “would go beyond the guidelines, no matter what they are.” It thus appears that the trial court neither knew nor cared to know the presumptive sentence applicable to appellant in its departure from the sentencing guidelines. We have previously held that there cannot be a proper departure without consideration of the presumptive guidelines sentence. Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla.2d DCA 1984).
We vacate appellant’s sentence and remand for resentencing and correction of the order of violation of community control in accordance with this opinion. Should the trial court again decide to depart, it must state in writing valid reasons for such a departure. Jackson v. State, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla.1985).
We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
SCHEB, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Dietz v. State, 534 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…s that the state was required to prove Dietz’s whereabouts to establish Dietz was not at home, we do not perceive this as the state’s burden. The order revoking community control must specify the conditions which have been violated. Coley v. State, 479 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We remand the case for entry of an order of revocation of community control which finds a violation of condition eleven. Dietz need not be present for this purpose. Although this decision will result in incarcerating a ninety-on…
-
Oden v. State, 542 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…n of appellant’s community control and subsequent eighteen-month sentence. We remand this case to the trial court for entry of a written order listing the specific conditions of community control appellant was found to have violated. Coley v. State, 479 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PATTERSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Lebert Batten v. State, 589 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…revocation of appellant’s probation and the sentence subsequently imposed. However, we remand the case to the trial court for entry of a written order listing the specific conditions of probation appellant was found to have violated. Coley v. State, 479 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Appellant’s judgments and sentences are affirmed in all other respects. Affirmed, but remanded. RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and PARKER, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Jackson, 478 So. 2d 1054 (Fla. 1985)
- Boldes v. State, 475 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Myrick v. State, 461 So. 2d 1359 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)