ALBERT MCKINNEY, 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.
In this community control revocation appeal, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's revocation of McKinney's community control but remanded for entry of a written order specifying which conditions were violated, as the trial court failed to articulate the specific grounds for revocation.
The court affirmed the revocation of community control as warranted by the evidence, but remanded the case for entry of a written order specifying the community control conditions which the trial court found appellant violated.
[1] A trial court's revocation of community control will be affirmed if supported by sufficient evidence, even if the defendant admits to violating some conditions.
[2] A trial court must enter a written order specifying the conditions of community control that were violated when revoking community control.
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“Appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to articulate the specific grounds for the revocation. We affirm the revocation, but remand for entry of a written order specifying the conditions of community control which the trial court found appellant violated.”
States the core issue and the court's holding regarding the need for a written order specifying conditions violated.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMcKinney was on community control and faced an affidavit alleging violations including leaving his residence without approval on eight occasions, leav…
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
Appellant seeks rehearing of the opinion issued June 28, 1993, in which we remanded this cause to the trial court for entry of an order specifying the conditions of community control the court deemed appellant violated. We grant the motion for rehearing in part, withdraw the prior opinion issued in this cause, and substitute the following therefor. This appeal is from the revocation of appellant’s community control and the resulting sentence. Appellant contends the trial court erred in failing to articulate the specific grounds for the revocation. We affirm the revocation, but remand for entry of a written order specifying the conditions of community control which the trial court found appellant violated.
The affidavit of violation of community control filed in this cause alleged that appellant violated his community control by leaving his residence without approval of his community control officer on eight separate occasions, by leaving the county of his residence without consent of his community control officer on four separate occasions, and by changing his residence without consent of his community control officer. At the hearing on the alleged violations, appellant’s community control officer testified regarding each of the violations charged in the affidavit. Appellant testified on his own behalf, contesting most of the violations alleged by his community control officer, and offering explanations for violation of those conditions which he admitted. The trial court found that by appellant’s own testimony, he violated the conditions of his community control. However, the court made no oral pronouncement, and entered no order specifying the conditions of community control relied upon for the revocation.
It was the trial court’s prerogative to accept the community control officer’s testimony over that of appellant. Moreover, appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation. In view of appellant’s admissions that he violated some of the conditions of his community control, revocation of community control was warranted, and we decline to disturb the trial court’s determination in this regard. However, remand is required for entry of an order specifying the community control conditions which appellant was determined to have violated. See Hogwood v. State, 615 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA1993); Boggs v. State, 557 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA1990).
Accordingly, this cause is remanded for entry of an order specifying the conditions of community control violated. The trial court’s disposition is affirmed in all other respects.
SMITH and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 711 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…f probation has been violated); Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(violation that triggers a revocation of probation must be willful and substantial, and must be proven by the greater weight of the evidence); McKinney v. State, 624 So. 2d 373, 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(stat-ing that it is the prerogative of the trial court to determine credibility of witnesses’ testimony and to accept one witness’s testimony over that of another). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revok…
-
Wilson v. State, 696 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…s probation, but conclude that remand is required for entry of an amended revocation order specifying, in conformance with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, the conditions of probation appellant was found to have violated. See McKinney v. State, 624 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Hogwood v. State, 615 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Appellant need not be present for this merely clerical correction. Bontrager v. State, 678 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We have considered the issues raised in appellant…
-
Ziegel v. State, 793 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (citing Williams v. State, 365 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)). Additionally, the trial court failed to orally pronounce or enter a written order specifying the conditions of probation that were violated. McKinney v. State, 624 So. 2d 373, 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (citing Hogwood v. State, 615 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Boggs v. State, 557 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)). Therefore, we AFFIRM the revocation of probation, and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opin…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Lavaughn Boggs v. State, 557 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Johnson v. State, 557 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Hogwood v. State, 615 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)