JEROME BOYNTON, 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.
Jerome Boynton challenged an order revoking his community control for alleged violations of conditions including contact with the victim and absence from his residence. The court reversed and remanded because the written revocation order failed to specify the grounds for revocation, despite the oral announcement at the hearing.
The court held that a written order revoking community control must specify the basis for revocation. Although the record supported revocation on some grounds, reversal and remand were required because the written order did not identify which violations formed the basis for the revocation.
[1] A written order revoking community control must specify the grounds for revocation.
[2] An appellate court must reverse and remand for a new order specifying the grounds for revocation when the written order fails to identify the basis for revocation.
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“While the record supports revocation on the ground that appellant was in contact with Pamela Boynton and that he was absent from his residence without permission on at least some of the occasions identified by the community control officer, we are nevertheless required to reverse and remand for entry of a written order specifying the basis for revocation.”
Establishes the court's holding that despite factual support for violations, a written order specifying grounds is mandatory.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBoynton pled guilty to aggravated battery and was placed on community control with conditions prohibiting contact with Pamela Boynton (the victim) and…
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
SMITH, Judge.
Appellant challenges an order revoking his community control. We reverse and remand.
Appellant pled guilty to the offense of aggravated battery, and was placed on community control. As a condition of community control, appellant was forbidden to have contact with Pamela Boynton, the victim of the aggravated battery; also, appellant was required to remain at his residence at all times except on certain, pre-approved occasions. An affidavit charging appellant violated these and other conditions was later filed by appellant’s community control officer. At the conclusion of a hearing, the lower court announced on the record that it found appellant had violated the terms of his community control because he had contact with Pamela Boynton and because appellant “[was] out of place.... ” Thereafter, a written form order was entered revoking appellant’s community control. The order did not identify the grounds of revocation.
While the record supports revocation on the ground that appellant was in contact with Pamela Boynton1 and that he was absent from his residence without permission on at least some of the occasions identified by the community control officer, we are nevertheless required to reverse and remand for entry of a written order specifying the basis for revocation. This is not a case where the record conclusively establishes that appellant violated all of the conditions alleged to have been violated in the affidavit for revocation of community control.2 See, McHellen v. State, 591 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). Therefore, we remand for entry of a written order stating the grounds for revoking community control. Knight v. State, 566 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA1990); Robinson v. State, 609 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).3
The order under review is REVERSED, and the cause REMANDED for entry of a new order. The appellant need not be present for entry of a second order. KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. . Appellant has argued that he was in contact with Pamela Boynton, his wife, only to help after she had been attacked by another man. A police officer testified that she was summoned to Pamela Boynton’s residence on the report that appellant was beating his wife. Regardless of the reason for the contact, there was undeniably contact which was prohibited.
. In addition to the violations noted above, it was also alleged that appellant used or possessed a weapon and committed a battery, contrary to the conditions of community control. The lower court did announce during the hearing that the state failed to sufficiently prove appellant used or possessed a weapon.
. The requirement of stating in the order the specific violations relied upon as the basis for revoking community control or probation serves several purposes, not the least of which is to facilitate review by an appellate court in event of an appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berke v. State, 704 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…the hearing. Gregg v. State, 643 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Jones v. State, 638 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Cue v. State, 619 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The defendant need not be present when this correction is made. Boynton v. State, 622 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). ALLEN, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.…
-
Ainsley Southwell v. State, 646 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…t reduce to writing the specific violations found. Robinson v. State, 609 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the court for entry of a written revocation order reciting the specific violations found. Boynton v. State, 622 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
-
Davis v. State, 704 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…, and substantial violation of the conditions thereof. Id. at 316. As to Condition (11), a defendant’s failure to obtain necessary permission before leaving an approved residence is a proper, reason for revoking community control. Boynton v. State, 622 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). At the revocation hearing, the 21-year-old appellant acknowledged knowing that community control is like “house jail” and that the conditions of community control required him to be at home except when properly excused. He admit…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 609 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Knight v. State, 566 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- McHELLEN v. State, 591 So. 2d 668 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)