PERFECTO CRUZ, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Cruz violated community control conditions, but remanded to strike unsupported violation findings and an illegal court improvement fund assessment.
A community control violation order must be amended to delete unsupported violation findings, and a court improvement fund assessment must be stricken as lacking legal basis.
[1] A court improvement fund assessment imposed as part of a community control violation order must be stricken when no legal basis exists for the assessment.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“there is no legal basis for the court improvement fund assessment”
The court cited its prior holding in Reyes v. State regarding the illegality of the court improvement fund assessment.
Perfecto Cruz was found in violation of community control and ordered to pay $150 to the court improvement fund based on alleged violations of multipl…
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 Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Perfecto Cruz seeks review of an order of the trial court finding him in violation of his community control and imposing a $150.00 assessment for the court improvement fund. We affirm the violation of community control but remand to the court to amend the violation order and to strike the assessment for the court improvement fund. The order of May 25,1994, violating appellant’s community control lists as reasons for the violation the violation of conditions 12 (paragraphs 1 through 6), 15, 16, 17 and 22. Appellant argues and the state agrees no evidence was presented that appellant violated paragraphs 5 and 6 of condition 12 or that he violated conditions 15,16,17, and 22. The order of violation must be amended to delete these reasons for violation. There was sufficient evidence presented, however, that he violated condition 12, paragraphs 1 through 4. Therefore, we affirm that portion of the trial court’s order violating appellant’s community control.
The trial court also ordered appellant to pay $150.00 to the court improvement fund. This court held in Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) there is no legal basis for the court improvement fund assessment. This assessment must therefore be stricken.
We affirm the trial court’s revocation of community control but remand to the trial court with directions to amend the order consistent with this opinion.
THREADGILL, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., concur.