WALTER J. SCOTT, 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.
Scott appealed the revocation of his community control and probation. The appellate court affirmed the revocation and sentences, but struck three unsupported violation allegations from the trial court's order. Scott's arguments regarding the scoresheet did not constitute preserved errors and would not have changed his sentence in any event.
The trial court properly revoked community control and probation based on three supported violations; however, additional violations found unsupported by evidence were struck. Scott's scoresheet arguments did not constitute preserved errors and, even if valid, would not have reduced the maximum 15-year sentence the trial court could impose for a second-degree felony with revocation of probation.
[1] Evidence supporting specific violations of community control and probation is sufficient to sustain revocation.
[2] A trial court may strike violations of community control or probation not supported by evidence presented at the revocation hearing.
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“the evidence at the hearing on violation of probation and community control permitted the trial court to find that Mr. Scott committed the following violations: (1) he failed to remain at his approved residence on September 19, 1989; (2) he committed spousal battery on February 12, 1991; and (3) he obstructed an officer on February 12, 1991”
Establishes the three violations the court found supported by evidence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott violated the conditions of his community control and probation through three conduct incidents: failing to remain at his approved residence on S…
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 Scoresheet Calculation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the order revoking Mr. Scott’s community control and probation. The evidence at the hearing on violation of probation and community control permitted the trial court to find that Mr. Scott committed the following violations: (1) he failed to remain at his approved residence on September 19, 1989; (2) he committed spousal battery on February 12, 1991; and (3).he obstructed an officer on February 12, 1991. However, we strike the additional violations described in the revocation order because they were not supported by the evidence. See Williams v. State 375 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
We also affirm Mr. Scott’s sentences imposed upon revocation of community control and probation. At the original sentencing hearing, his counsel waived a presentence investigation and stipulated to the accuracy of the scoresheet. At sentencing upon the violation of probation and community control, his counsel argued that a grand larceny charge on the scoresheet had been dismissed or was too old to be scored.
Additionally, the defendant suggested that one or possibly two misdemeanors might not be properly scored. The defendant argued that the state should be obligated to prove these prior convictions before sentencing upon revocation of probation and community control. These alleged errors are not errors in scoresheet calculation, and we doubt they have been preserved for direct appeal. See Dailey v. State, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla.1986).
Cf. Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.800(a) (trial court may correct scoresheet calculation at any time); Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (summary denial of motion for post-conviction relief on basis of ineffective assistance of counsel affirmed where score-sheet error complained of was not apparent from face of record and defendant did not contend that counsel had been informed of alleged scoresheet error but failed to preserve issue).
Even if the errors complained of were subtracted from Mr. Scott’s score-sheet, the trial court could have imposed the same 15-year term of imprisonment, as the maximum legal sentence for a second-degree felony, under the one-cell bump for revocation of probation.
Affirmed as modified.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and FRANK and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Rightmyer, 488 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1986)
- Lomont v. State, 506 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Williams v. State, 375 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)