SAMUEL RAMIREZ, 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 held that the State offered sufficient proof of the violations, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking community control.
Samuel Ramirez appealed the revocation of his community control and subsequent prison sentence after being found to have violated conditions by being …
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
BLUE, Judge.
Samuel Ramirez appeals the revocation of community control and subsequent prison sentence. Because the State offered sufficient proof of the violations, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking community control. Accordingly, we affirm.
In 1994, Ramirez pleaded guilty to committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child in violation of section 800.04, Florida Statutes (1993). He was placed on community control for one year to be followed by probation for four years. In 1995, an affidavit was filed alleging that Ramirez committed numerous violations of his community control. After a hearing, the trial court found that Ramirez violated condition (12) six times by being-absent from his residence without permission. The trial court also found that he violated community control by failing to successfully complete sex offender treatment.
Based on these violations, the trial court sentenced Ramirez to four and a half years in prison. Because the evidence was sufficient to prove willful and substantial violations, we affirm. We remand, however, for entry of an order specifying the conditions which have been violated. See Dietz v. State, 534 So. 2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Ramirez does not need to be present.
RYDER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.