PATRICK DAVIS, 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.
Patrick Davis challenged the revocation of his community control and imprisonment sentence, arguing the state failed to prove willful and substantial violations of various conditions. The court partially affirmed, striking findings on several conditions due to insufficient evidence, but upheld the violation of condition 5 and remanded for amendments to the revocation order.
The court affirmed the finding of violation of condition 5 but struck the findings regarding conditions 2, 3, 15, and 19 due to insufficient evidence of willful and substantial violations. The court also struck the written findings regarding condition 12 because they did not conform to the oral findings and remanded for amendment of the revocation order to reflect only violations of conditions 5 and 12.
[1] A trial court's order revoking community control will be affirmed as to violations supported by sufficient evidence of willfulness and substantiality.
[2] A defendant's failure to complete community service hours in a single month does not sufficiently demonstrate a willful and substantial violation of a community control c…
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“the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his violations were willful and substantial”
Establishes the legal standard Davis must satisfy on appeal regarding community control violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavis was subject to community control with multiple conditions, including remaining confined to his residence (condition 12) and completing 100 hours…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
Patrick Davis challenges the trial court’s order revoking his community control and sentencing him to 4.5 years’ imprisonment. He alleges the court erred by revoking his community control because the state failed to present sufficient evidence to prove his violations were willful and substantial. We affirm the trial court’s order as to Davis’ violation of condition 5 but strike the court’s findings as to violations of conditions 2, 3, 15, and 19 because the state failed to produce sufficient evidence of Davis’ willful and substantial violation of these conditions. See Molina v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). We also strike the trial court’s written findings as to certain violations of condition 12 because they do not conform with the court’s oral findings. We affirm Davis’ judgment and sentence in all other respects.
The state alleged ten violations of community control condition 12 which required that Davis remain confined to his residence. The trial court found Davis in violation of condition 12 on seven separate occasions; however, the revocation order indicates that Davis was found guilty of all ten alleged violations. On remand, the revocation order should be amended to conform with the court’s oral findings. Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).
The state also alleged that Davis violated community control condition 19 — to complete 100 hours of community service at ten hours per month. According to his community control officer, Davis completed 11 hours of community service in May 1996. While he failed to complete any community service hours in April 1996, this does not sufficiently demonstrate a willful and substantial violation of condition 19.
Finally, the state alleged violations of community control conditions 2, 3 and 15. There is no evidence in the record to support these alleged violations; therefore, we also strike the court’s findings as to Davis’ violation of community control conditions 2, 3 and 15. On remand, the revocation order should be amended to show violations of conditions 5 and 12 only.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ameht Dominguez v. State, 848 So. 2d 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…defendant’s community control on ground one, failure to pay restitution, based on the state’s proper concession. We also reverse the revocation as to ground two, failure to perform monthly community service hours, on the authority of Davis v. State, 697 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The state argued in the trial court that defendant failed to complete the 30 hours required for the period in question. However, defendant had completed 18 hours in that period. Here, as in Davis, defendant substantially performe…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Piper v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Molina v. State, 520 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)