JAMES SHELTON, 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.
The court reversed the revocation of Shelton's community control because the condition required him to remain at his residence, not to be at his place of employment.
A defendant's community control cannot be revoked for failure to comply with a requirement that is not actually imposed by the community control order.
[1] Community control cannot be revoked for failure to comply with a requirement not actually imposed by the community control order.
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“a defendant's probation/community control cannot be revoked for conduct that is not prohibited or required by the order of probation/community control”
Court stating the governing legal principle that probation/community control revocation must be based on violations of actual conditions imposed
Shelton was on community control with a condition requiring him to remain confined to his residence except for limited exceptions including approved e…
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
STEVENSON, J.
In March of 2002, James Shelton, the appellant, was on community control. Condition 1(a) of Shelton’s community control required that he “remain confined to [his] residence except one half hour before and after [his] approved employment, community service work, or any other activities approved by [his] officer.” The State filed an affidavit of violation, alleging that Shelton had violated this condition by failing to remain at his approved employment site on four days in March 2002. At the violation of community control hearing, Shelton’s employer testified that Shelton was not at work on the relevant dates. As a consequence of his failure to be at work, the trial court revoked Shelton’s community control.
It is well established that a defendant’s probation/community control cannot be revoked for conduct that is not prohibited or required by the order of probation/community control. See, e.g., Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)(holding that probation could not be revoked for defendant’s failure to pay for a polygraph test as this was not a condition of probation); Wright v. State, 687 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)(holding that probation could not be revoked for defendant’s failure to undergo DNA testing where probation order did not require such testing). Condition 1(a), the condition that Shelton was found to have violated, simply does not require him to be at his place of employment; rather, it requires him to be at home with some limited exceptions. Consequently, we reverse the order of revocation.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
MAY, J., and CHAVIES, MICHAEL B., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Wright v. State, 687 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)