HAROLD CARSON, 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.
Harold Carson appealed the revocation of his community control sentence on two grounds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the revocation, holding that community control officers cannot unilaterally impose conditions of community control—only judges may do so—and that the state failed to prove Carson's financial ability to pay supervision fees.
A community control officer cannot impose conditions of community control; only the trial court may do so. Therefore, Carson could not be found in violation for failing to wear an electronic monitor that was not court-ordered. Additionally, the state failed to meet its burden of proving that Carson was financially able to make the required payments.
[1] Conditions of community control can only be imposed by the court, not by a community control officer.
[2] A community control officer cannot create and impose a condition of community control, even if the Department of Corrections has discretion to electronically monitor an o…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Community control may be revoked only for a condition imposed by the court, not by the Department of Corrections officer.”
Establishes the core holding that only courts, not officers, may impose community control conditions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 5, 1987, Carson was sentenced to eighteen months of community control. Without a court order, his community control officer instructed him to w…
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 Community Control Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
GUNTHER, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of revocation of community control finding defendant in violation of two conditions of his community control. We reverse.
On May 5, 1987, defendant was sentenced to eighteen months’ community control pursuant to section 948.03, Florida Statutes. During this period, defendant’s community control officer, without a court order, instructed the defendant to wear an electronic monitoring device. Subsequently, he was charged with and found guilty of violating his community control for (1) failing to wear an electronic monitoring device (Count I), and (2) being $100 in arrears on his $30 monthly payments for the cost of supervision (Count II).
Although the defendant raises several issues on appeal as to Count I, we need only respond to one. We agree with the defendant’s assertion that the trial court erred in revoking his community control for failure to wear an electronic monitoring device. Wearing an electronic monitor was not a condition ordered by the trial judge. Here, it was the defendant’s com munity control officer who required him to wear an electronic monitoring device. In our view, the wearing of an electronic monitoring device as a “condition” of community control can only be ordered by the trial judge. The statute provides:
948.03. Terms and conditions of probation or community control.—
(1) The court shall determine the terms and conditions of probation or community control....
(2) The court shall require intensive supervision and surveillance for an offender placed into community control, which may include, but shall not be limited to:
(d) Supervision by the Department of Corrections by means of an electronic monitoring device or system, [emphasis added]
Community control may be revoked only for a condition imposed by the court, not by the Department of Corrections officer. See Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Although section 948.03(3), Florida Statutes, permits the “Department of Corrections, at its discretion, to electronically monitor an offender sentenced to community control,” nothing in the statute elevates this discretion to the level of authority to create and impose a “condition” of community control. A community control officer does not have the power to prescribe a new condition. See Hutchinson v. State, 428 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Since conditions of community control can only be imposed by the court, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the adjudication of guilty as to Count I.
As to Count II, although the written order of revocation finds him guilty of being in arrears on his monthly payments, there was no such oral finding at the time of the revocation hearing. Furthermore, the state failed to meet its burden of showing that the defendant was able to make the required payments. Holt v. State, 385 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Therefore, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to strike the adjudication of guilty as to Count II.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WALDEN, J., and DAUKSCH, JAMES C., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Charvester Anthony v. State, 854 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…ions may, at its discretion, electronically monitor an offender sentenced to community control.” However, this provision does not give the Department the authority to impose electronic monitoring as a condition of community control. Carson v. State, 531 So. 2d 1069, 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Additionally, the community control order in the lewd acts case indicates that electronic monitoring may be imposed when recommended by the Department and ordered by the court. Because the trial court never ordered electro…
Authorities Cited
- Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Denver Jesse Hutchinson v. State, 428 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Holt v. State, 385 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)