RONNIE JAMES DASSAU, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed revocation of community control, finding the state failed to prove willful and substantial violations where the defendant was employed, supporting his family, and not engaged in criminal activity.
The state must prove willful and substantial violations to revoke community control; inept or negligent conduct is insufficient.
[1] To revoke community control, the state must prove willful and substantial violations; inept or negligent conduct is insufficient to establish a willful violation.
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“Inept or negligent conduct is insufficient to demonstrate a willful violation.”
Court explaining the standard for proving community control violations.
Dassau was on community control, holding two jobs sanctioned by his supervisor, supporting his family including a severely ill premature infant, and n…
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
SHEVIN, Judge.
We reverse the order revoking Ronnie James Dassau’s community control finding that the state did not meet its burden of establishing that the violations alleged were willful and substantial. See Howard v. State, 484 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1986); Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Benavides v. State, 679 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Inept or negligent conduct is insufficient to demonstrate a willful violation. See Thomas v. State, 672 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Stevens v. State, 599 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). See also Jackson v. State, 622 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)(merely asserting defendant not at home insufficient to establish defendant was not at approved activity).
In this case, it would appear community control is serving its purpose: Dassau was holding two jobs — sanctioned by his previous community control supervisor; he was supporting his family, including his severely ill premature infant; and he was not engaged in any criminal activity. The state failed to present competent substantial evidence to support the alleged violations.
Based on the foregoing, the revocation order and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded for further consistent proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riddle v. State, 755 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…probationer and that the community control was serving its purpose. According to appellant’s community control officer, he had always reported on time, completed boot camp, got his GED, and enrolled in Broward Community College. See Dassau v. State, 731 So. 2d 86, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). The facts of this case are much like those considered in Thomas and Stevens v. State, 599 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). We conclude, as the court did in Stevens, that “[hjowever inept and negligent [appellant’s] conduct, the…
-
Dante Mortel McCRAY v. State, 754 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…he presence of mind to attempt to contact his community control officer through his aunt is, at best, evidence of ineptitude or negligence. Inept or negligent conduct, however, is insufficient to demonstrate a willful violation. See Dassau v. State, 731 So. 2d 86, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Stevens, 599 So. 2d at 255. Thus, based upon the foregoing, we reverse the revocation order and sentence and remand with directions that McCray’s community control be reinstated. Reversed and remanded.…
-
Cranz v. State, 854 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…sences from the home. The greater weight of the evidence did not show that the two acts should have been considered as a willful and substantial violation of the community control. McCray v. State, 754 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dassau v. State, 731 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Inept or negligent conduct is insufficient to demonstrate willfulness. McCray, supra, at 778. Accordingly, the revocation of defendant’s community control is reversed.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stevens v. State, 599 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Theron Thomas v. State, 672 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Howard v. State, 484 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1986)
- Femando Benavides v. State, 679 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Peterson v. Peterson, 622 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)