STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
BRUCE CASNER, 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 appealed a circuit court's dismissal of a community control violation affidavit against Casner. The appellate court reversed, holding that a court may revoke community control based on a single violation and has discretion to revoke, modify, or continue community control upon finding a violation.
A court may revoke community control based on a single violation. Upon finding a violation of community control, the court has discretion to revoke, modify, or continue community control.
[1] A court may revoke a defendant's community control based on a single violation.
[2] Remaining in one's residence during specified times is a vital component of a community control program.
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 court may revoke a defendant's community control based on a single violation”
Establishes the primary holding that contradicts the circuit court's erroneous belief about requiring multiple violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCasner was on community control with strict residence requirements. His community control officer filed an affidavit alleging violations on November 2…
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 Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
The State bemoans the circuit court’s order dismissing an affidavit of violation of Bruce Casner’s community control. We reverse, not to direct a revocation, but instead to permit the circuit court to reconsider its decision in light of its discretion to dismiss the affidavit or to revoke, modify, or continue Casner’s community control.
Casner’s community control officer filed an affidavit of violation alleging that Cas-ner was absent from his residence without permission on November 23, 2000, and December 16, 2000. Concluding that the evidence reflected a misunderstanding between Casner and his officer about the permitted duration of an approved shopping trip on December 16, the circuit court declined to find a violation on that date.
As for the November 23 incident, Cas-ner acknowledged that he knowingly left his home without permission in order to attend a family Thanksgiving dinner. Even so, the circuit court posited that under Second District case law it could not revoke Casner’s community control based on this single absence. For that reason, it dismissed the revocation proceeding.
We write to emphasize that, in fact, a court may revoke a defendant’s community control based on a single violation. Berthiaume v. State, 755 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 773 So. 2d 54 (Fla.2000). Moreover, community control is a very intensive, supervised custody in the community, and “remaining in one’s residence during the specified times is. indeed a vital component of a community control program.” State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982, 986 (Fla.2001). Upon finding a violation of community control, the court may revoke, modify, or continue it in the court’s discretion. § 948.06(1), Fla. Stat. (2001); Brown v. State, 455 So. 2d 635, 635-36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
The order under review was founded on the circuit court’s mistaken belief that it lacked discretion to revoke, modify, or continue Casner’s community control when, in fact, it did possess such discretion. Therefore, we reverse the order and remand to permit the court to reconsider its decision. In so doing, we express no preference for any of the discretionary remedies the court may choose to apply in this case. See Simpkins v. State, 784 So. 2d 1203, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Marchetta v. State, 766 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Driscoll v. Sharp, 711 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
WHATLEY and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…munity control, the court decides whether to revoke, modify, or continue it. See § 948.06(2)(a, e), Fla. Stat. (2011); Nadzo v. State, 24 So. 3d 690, 692 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Mikell v. State, 903 So. 2d 1054, 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); State v. Casner, 825 So. 2d 993, 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Brown v. State, 455 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (citing Harris v. State, 453 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)). If the trial court revokes probation, it may impose any sentence it might initially have imposed. § 948.06(2)(b…
-
Simmons v. State, 849 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1986); State v. Casner, 825 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Davis v. State, 704 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). KAHN, WEBSTER, and DAVIS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 2001)
- Brown v. State, 455 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Simpkins v. State, 784 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Dayna Maria Marchetta v. State, 766 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Berthiaume v. State, 755 So. 2d 804 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Driscoll v. Sharp, 711 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Lewis v. State, 711 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)