ANNIE DREASE KNIGHT, 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.
Annie Knight appeals a finding that she violated the terms of her community control sentence. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to make specific written findings of fact regarding which violations it found proven.
The court's finding of violation must be reversed and remanded because the trial court neither orally announced nor entered a written order reciting the specific violations found, which is required by law.
[1] A trial court's failure to orally announce or enter a written order reciting the specific violations found constitutes reversible error.
[2] A trial court must clearly articulate the specific violations of community control for which a defendant is found to be in violation.
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“Failure to make such written findings requires reversal. Clark v. State, 510 So.2d 1202 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987).”
Establishes the mandatory requirement that trial courts must make specific written findings in community control violation cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKnight was sentenced to two years of community control on September 6, 1989, after pleading guilty to escape. On October 13, 1989, a hearing was held …
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 Affidavit Of Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
WOLF, Judge.
Appellant seeks review from a finding that she was in violation of community control. For the reasons enumerated herein, we must reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Appellant was sentenced to two years community control on September 6, 1989, after entering a plea to a charge of escape. On October 10, 1989, an Affidavit of Violation of Community Control was filed, and a warrant based on that affidavit was issued. On October 13,1989, a hearing was held on the violation of community control. At the hearing, the trial court informed the appel lant that she violated her community control by:
1. Changing her place of residence or employment without consent of her community control officer;
2. Violating the law by possessing cannabis and a concealed weapon, a paring knife; and
3. Not staying at her approved residence.
As the judge began to tell the appellant of potential sentencing alternatives, the defendant interrupted to indicate that she did not want to go to prison. After a brief exchange between the defense counsel and the court, the following exchange took place:
MR. COMBS (prosecutor): Yes, sir. If we need to have the actual testimony as to what’s alleged in the affidavit, I'll have to—
THE COURT: Well, I think what she’s trying to say in her own way is that she does not deny that she wasn’t in the county and she doesn’t deny that she was arrested and she doesn’t deny that she was away from her approved place of residence.
Counsel, from your talking with her, is that what she appears to want to do?
MRS. SANFORD (defense counsel): Yes, sir. THE COURT: Therefore, it would not be necessary to have the community control officer here today to testify about the same things which were in the affidavit for violation of community control.
MRS. SANFORD: I don’t think that Mrs. Knight denies any of the factual things. I think she has some explanations that would be helpful to the court.
The court questioned the defendant under oath concerning the alleged violations of her community control. Neither the prosecutor nor the defense counsel participated in this portion of the proceeding. The court found the defendant to be in violation of community control and sentenced her to thirty months in the Department of Corrections and an additional period of probation.
The court neither orally announced nor entered a written order reciting the specific violations found by the court. Failure to make such written findings requires reversal. Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1987).
The written final judgment does not indicate whether the court found the defendant guilty based upon evidence received or whether the court made a finding based upon entry of a plea. The transcript of the proceeding is also not clear on this matter. We reverse and remand for a new hearing on the allegation that appellant violated community control.
WIGGINTON and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Robinson v. State, 609 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…the evidence. However, despite acceptable oral findings of the basis for revocation, a trial court must enter a written order reciting the specific violations found. Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accord Knight v. State, 566 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Wilson v. State, 581 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The revocation order entered by the trial court herein does not recite the violations as required. Therefore, while we affirm the revocation of community control, we…
-
Rock v. State, 584 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…oper, the order must be reversed. Consequently, appellant’s third issue, the failure of the trial court to state in the revocation order the specific violations found, is moot. Because, however, the order is indeed insufficient, see Knight v. State, 566 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), we caution the trial court on remand, should it find once again that appellant violated the terms of his probation, to enter an order reciting the specific violations. REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consiste…
-
Brundage v. State, 593 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…probation, the trial court must state the specific terms and conditions of which the probationer has been found in violation. Dantler v. State, 584 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Brewer v. State, 583 So. 2d 814 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Knight v. State, 566 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). Accordingly, the order revoking appellant’s probation is reversed, and the cause is remanded for entry of a written order specifying the terms and conditions relied upon by the trial court for revocation of probation. SHIVER…
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
- Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)