LARRY GARVISON, 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.
Garvison appeals the trial court's revocation of his community control, arguing the court erred by first modifying his community control to add a six-month county jail sentence and then later attempting to revoke his community control based on a pre-existing violation. The court agreed and reversed, finding the trial court lacked authority to enhance community control conditions without proof of violation and could not revoke community control a second time.
The trial court erred in both respects. A trial court cannot enhance or add new conditions to community control absent proof of violation, and such enhancement is not cured by the defendant's agreement. Additionally, once a modification that effectively constitutes a revocation has been imposed, the trial court cannot enter a second order revoking community control based on a pre-existing violation.
[1] A trial court cannot enhance the penalty or add new conditions to community control after it has been imposed, even with the defendant's agreement.
[2] A trial court cannot revoke community control based on an incident that occurred prior to the imposition of a new jail sentence as a modification of that community contro…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A trial court may at any time modify community control conditions it has previously imposed but cannot enhance the penalty or add new conditions, as it did with Garvison's six-month jail sentence.”
Establishes the core holding that enhancement of community control conditions requires proof of violation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 7, 1997, Garvison was placed on community control for two years. In October 1997, an affidavit of violation was filed for violations occur…
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
GREEN, Acting Chief Judge.
Larry Garvison timely appeals the trial court’s judgment which revoked his community control. Garvison contends that the trial court erred in originally modifying his community control by sentencing him to six months in county jail. Garvison also contends the trial court again erred by later revoking his community control, while he was serving his jail sentence, based on an incident which occurred prior to the modification. We agree with Garvi-son’s contentions and reverse with directions.
On February 7, 1997, Garvison was placed on community control for a period of two years. On October 23, 1997, an affidavit of violation of community control was filed for violations committed on October 5 and October 9, 1997. A hearing was held on the violations on January 9, 1998.
The trial court, with Garvison’s agreement, modified his community control and sentenced him to six months in the county jail. After Garvison began serving his jail sentence, another affidavit of violation of community control was filed on March 11, 1998, for a battery which occurred on August 31, 1997. In July 1998, the trial court held a hearing on the March 1998 affidavit and found that Garvison had violated the terms of his community control based on the battery that occurred on August 31, 1997. The trial court sentenced Garvison to sixty-one months of imprisonment after revoking his community control.
When the trial court modified Garvison’s community control on January 9, 1998, by imposing a six-month county jail sentence, it actually added a new condition to his community control: a six-month jail sentence. A trial court may at any time modify community control conditions it has previously imposed but cannot enhance the penalty or add new conditions, as it did with Garvison’s six-month jail sentence. See § 948.03(6), Fla. Stat. (1997). Even though Garvison agreed to the six-month jail sentence, this does not cure the error. See Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1991) (holding that absent proof of violation, the court cannot change order of probation or community control by enhancing terms thereof, even if defendant has agreed in writing with probation officer to allow modification and has waived notice and hearing); Casterline v. State, 703 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (holding that although the court has right to rescind or modify terms and conditions of probation at any time, absent proof of violation, the court cannot change the order of probation by enhancing its terms and double jeopardy includes protection against enhancements or extensions of conditions of probation).
Additionally, the trial court erred again when it attempted in July 1998 to use a battery that Garvison committed on August 31, 1997, to revoke Garvison’s community control. Once the new sentence of six months in county jail was imposed, which effectively became a revocation, the trial court could not enter a second order revoking Garvison’s community control. See Baker v. State, 380 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We reverse the order revoking Garvi-son’s community control and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., (Senior) Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gearhart v. State, 885 So. 2d 415 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…modify any probation conditions with the caveat that the court cannot enhance the penalty or add new conditions without proof of a violation. Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061 (Fla.1994); Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1991); Garvison v. State, 775 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Casterline v. State, 703 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). An enhancement of probation where there is no proof of a violation of probation contravenes “the double jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishments for the same offen…
-
Wesner v. State, 843 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…y the terms of probation or community control at any time, but absent a violation of probation or community control, it may not add new conditions or enhance the penalty. See Blair v. State, 805 So. 2d 873, 877 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Garvison v. State, 775 So. 2d 340, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). By concluding that it did not have the discretion to modify Wesner’s probation to [*1041] allow him to have unsupervised contact with his son and grandchildren until completion of the sex offender treatment program, the tri…
-
King v. State, 990 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…s that the defendant committed a willful and substantial violation. Lippman v. State, 633 So. 2d 1061, 1064 (Fla.1994); Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109, 110-11 (Fla.1991); Gearhart v. State, 885 So. 2d 415, 417 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Garrison v. State, 775 So. 2d 340, 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cole v. State, 745 So. 2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Casterline v. State, 703 So. 2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). King contends that he could not have violated Special Condition 2 because he was incarcerated at the tim…
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
- Clark v. State, 579 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1991)
- Casterline v. State, 703 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- King Mountain Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Gundlach, 380 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)