STEVEN S. PORRAS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
The court held that the written order revoking community control must conform to the oral pronouncement, but the defendant's unauthorized absence was a sufficient basis for revocation.
The defendant appealed the revocation of his community control and imposition of a prison sentence. The written order of revocation included findings …
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
PER CURIAM.
Steven S. Porras appeals the trial court’s order revoking his community control and imposing a prison sentence. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
As to point I, the State confesses error. The written order varies from the trial court’s oral pronouncement by making findings that the defendant had committed the offenses of obstructing justice, and loitering and prowling. At the hearing below, the State withdrew those claims and accordingly, the trial court did not make any finding of such violations. The order under review is reversed insofar as the written order varies from the trial court’s oral pronouncements and remanded for correction of the written order. Defendant need not be present for that purpose.
As to point II, we affirm. It is undisputed that the defendant was away from his residence without permission, contrary to the terms of the community control order. This is a sufficient basis for the revocation of community control. Dietz v. State, 534 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Royal v. State, 508 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Whether, under the circumstances, the defendant’s violation should have been excused was a matter for the discretion of the trial court. The revocation of community control is affirmed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…iolated his community control by failing to remain confined to his residence. See, e.g., Allen v. State, 666 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). A violation of this condition is sufficient to support revocation of community control. See Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Despite our ruling that only one of the violations is valid, we affirm the order on this ground as the court’s statements at the hearing demonstrate that it would have revoked Smith’s community control based on this violation alo…
-
Altas Allen v. State, 666 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ere he had permission to be, nor at home, where he was otherwise required to be. This is a sufficient basis and we therefore hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Allen’s community control. Id.; see also Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (whether to excuse the defendant’s violation is within the trial court’s discretion). We affirm the trial court’s revocation of Allen’s community control, but hold that the resultant sentence of twenty-two years in prison, follow…
-
Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…l. Whether Appellant should be excused for leaving is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion. See id,.; Allen v. State, 666 So. 2d 259, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Turner v. State, 711 So. 2d 1321, 1321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183, 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). The trial court did err, however, in additionally revoking community control based on Appellant’s failure to pay costs where the evidence does not indicate that he had the ability to pay at the relevant times. Allen v. Stat…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dietz v. State, 534 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Royal v. State, 508 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)