KENDELL AMOS WILMORE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Kendell Amos Wilmore appealed the revocation of his sex offender probation, challenging the trial court's findings that he violated two probation conditions. The appellate court affirmed the violation of electronic monitoring but reversed the violation of the no-contact-with-minors condition due to insufficient evidence, requiring remand for reconsideration of the appropriate sentence.
The court affirmed the finding of violation of Special Condition 18 but reversed the finding of violation of Standard Condition 19 due to lack of competent, substantial evidence. The court remanded for reconsideration because it could not determine whether the trial court would have revoked probation based solely on the Special Condition 18 violation.
[1] A finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.
[2] A trial court's finding of a probation violation is in error when the record lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A lower court's finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for probation violation findings cited from Stringfield v. State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilmore was subject to sex offender probation with Special Condition 18 (electronic monitoring) and Standard Condition 19 (prohibition on contact with…
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 Sex Offender Registration cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kendell Amos Wilmore appeals the trial court’s order revoking his sex offender probation after finding him in violation of Special Condition 18 and Standard Condition 19.
On appeal, Wilmore argues, inter alia, that the State failed to present competent, substantial evidence of either violation.
We affirm the trial court’s finding that Appellant violated Special Condition 18, mandating electronic monitoring, without further discussion.
However, we agree that there is no competent, substantial evidence in our record to support the trial court’s finding that Wilmore violated Standard Condition 19, which prohibits contact with a minor. As such, the trial court’s finding that Wilmore violated Condition 19 is in error. See Stringfield v. State, 254 So. 3d 1127, 1127–28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (“A lower court’s finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.” (citation omitted)).
Based on our record, including the trial court’s focus on the violation of Standard Condition 19, we cannot determine whether the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence based solely on the violation of Special Condition
18.
We therefore reverse the order and remand for reconsideration. See Niemi v. State, 284 So. 3d 1143, 1145–46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
We otherwise affirm. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. WALLIS, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.