JORGE ANTONIO LOPEZ, 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.
Jorge Antonio Lopez appeals the revocation of his community control sentence for violating conditions requiring truthful responses to his officer and remaining confined to his residence. The appellate court affirmed the revocation, finding legally sufficient evidence of willful and substantial violations while striking one unsupported ground for revocation based on inability to pay costs.
The court affirmed the revocation of community control based on sufficient evidence of willful and substantial violations of the truthfulness and residence conditions. The court struck the ground for revocation based on failure to pay costs where there was no evidence Lopez had the ability to pay. The court rejected Lopez's argument that he was entitled to jail time credit against the community control term.
[1] Evidence is legally sufficient to prove willful and substantial violations of community control when it demonstrates a defendant lied to a community control officer and w…
[2] The evidence for revocation of community control need only be sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that the violation occurred.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 evidence for revocation of community control need only be sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that the violation occurred.”
Establishes the legal standard for revocation of community control
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLopez told his community control officer he was working at a specific business, but when the officer conducted a field visit, the employer stated Lope…
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 Ability To Pay Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, C.J.
We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence as the record reflects evidence legally sufficient to prove willful and substantial violations of his community control. Appellant violated conditions of community control requiring him to answer truthfully all questions put to him by his community control officer, to file a truthful monthly report, and to remain confined in his residence.
Appellant told the community control officer that he was working at a certain business. When the officer conducted a field visit to that business, the employer told him that Appellant had never worked there. Ap pellant subsequently admitted that he lied. The officer also testified that he conducted a field visit of Appellant’s home and found Appellant absent. The next day, Appellant told the officer that he had been at the hospital with his son. In attempting to verify this information with the hospital, the officer discovered that the hospital had no record of it. The officer also testified that the probation office had a twenty-four hour number that Appellant should have called in the event of an emergency. Another community control officer had also visited Appellant’s home a week earlier and found no one at home.
The evidence for revocation of community control need only be sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court that the violation occurred. Horn v. State, 433 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The testimony was sufficient to support a conclusion that Appellant did not truthfully respond to the officer’s inquiries. See Roseboro v. State, 528 So. 2d 499, 500 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
The evidence indicates that Appellant made a conscious decision to leave his residence and made no reasonable effort to comply with the condition. See Llumbet v. State, 698 So. 2d 381, 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Absence from the home without permission supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation of community control. 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. State, 662 So. 2d 380, 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Pinder v. State, 653 So. 2d 469, 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995).- Although we strike this ground for the violation, we affirm the judgment and sentence, as it is clear that the trial court would have revoked Appellant’s probation even absent the violations based on failure to pay. See Weston v. State, 694 So. 2d 850, 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Wilson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1170, 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
We also reject Appellant’s contention that the trial court should have given him credit pursuant to section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes, against his community control term for time served in jail prior to sentencing. This argument has been previously rejected based on the fact that community control is not the equivalent of incarceration. See In the Interest of B.A., 546 So. 2d 125, 125-26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Depson v. State, 363 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 1076, 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); see also Chancey v. State, 614 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
KLEIN, J. and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)…ct court determined that failure to remain confined within the approved residence did not constitute a technical violation of community-control, but that it amounted to willful and substantial violation of community control. See also Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)( “Absence from the home without permission supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation of community control.”); Davis v. State, 704 So. 2d 681, 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(holding that defendant who failed to remai…
-
Jackson v. State, 785 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…y if it is shown that the trial court abused its discretion. See Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974). Absence from home without permission supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation of community control. See Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Whether appellant should be excused for leaving is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion. See id. Based on the facts of this case, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appellant’s…1 / 2
-
Fisher v. State, 778 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…ailed to remain confined to his residence as required and failed to report to his community control officer as ordered. Both failures on Fisher’s part constituted willful and substantial violations of his community control order. See Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). AFFIRMED. PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (14 total)
- Wilson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Depson v. State, 363 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Roseboro v. State, 528 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- Allen v. State, 662 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Altas Allen v. State, 666 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Horn v. State, 433 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- In the Interest of B.A., 546 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Llumbet v. State, 698 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Chancey v. State, 614 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)