LEE RONNIE OGLETREE, 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.
Lee Ronnie Ogletree appealed the revocation of his community control and resulting sentences. The court affirmed the revocation and sentences but struck the finding that Ogletree violated his community control by being away from his approved residence on July 1-2, 2003, because that violation was unsupported by evidence.
The court affirmed the revocation of community control based on competent, substantial evidence of violations involving cocaine use and the July 13, 2003 absence, but struck the finding regarding the July 1-2, 2003 absence because admission to a mental health facility during a medical emergency does not constitute a willful violation of community control.
[1] A finding of willful violation of community control is not supported by evidence that the defendant sought medical treatment for a mental breakdown.
[2] Revocation of community control may be affirmed even if one alleged violation is not supported by evidence, provided other violations are supported by competent, substant…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“There is nothing in the record to suggest that his admission to the center was anything other than a valid medical emergency. Under the circumstances, the evidence does not support a finding of a willful violation.”
The court's rationale for striking the July 1-2 violation finding, establishing that voluntary admission to a mental health facility during a medical emergency cannot constitute a willful community control violation.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOgletree was initially placed on probation for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. He violated probation by committing burglary and grand th…
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
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Lee Ronnie Ogletree appeals an order revoking his community control and the sentences imposed as a result. We affirm the revocation of community control and sentences imposed thereon, but strike reference to the trial court’s finding that Mr. Ogletree violated condition twelve of his community control by being away from his approved residence without permission on July 1 and 2, 2003.
Mr. Ogletree was initially placed on probation for possession of cocaine and drug paraphernalia. He violated his probation by committing burglary and grand theft and was placed on community control for both sets of offenses. Thereafter, he was charged with three violations of community control because he tested positive for cocaine and because he was away from his approved residence on two separate occasions. There was competent, substantial evidence that Mr. Ogletree willfully violated the terms of his community control when he tested positive for cocaine and when he left his approved residence on July 13, 2003, without permission, to help his friend move furniture.
The claim that Mr. Ogletree was away from his approved residence without permission on July 1 and 2, 2003, however, is supported only by evidence that he checked himself into the Peace River Center after suffering a mental breakdown. There is nothing in the record to suggest that his admission to the center was anything other than a valid medical emergency. Under the circumstances, the evidence does not support a finding of a willful violation. See Robinson v. State, 744 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Williams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287, 288 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Nevertheless, because we conclude that the other two violations were supported by competent, substantial evidence and supported the revocation of community control, we affirm the revocation and the sentences imposed. See Hay-good v. State, 687 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (striking portion of order revoking community control because some violations were not supported by evidence, but affirming revocation because it was clear trial court would have revoked community control based solely on proper violations).
Accordingly, we affirm the order revoking community control, but require the reference that Mr. Ogletree violated condition twelve on July 1 and 2, 2003, be stricken from the revocation order.
Affirmed with instructions.
SALCINES and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reed v. State, 127 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…same sentence based solely on Mr. Reed’s single violation of condition 5 and the four violations of the condition that required him to remain confined to his residence. See Pollard v. State, 930 So. 2d 854, 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Ogletree v. State, 886 So. 2d 420, 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Baker v. State, 789 So. 2d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Finally, as argued by Mr. Reed and conceded by the State, the revocation order contains numerous flaws. It does not conform to the oral pronouncement; it incorrectly…
-
Smith v. State, 965 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…lse report to his probation officer and smoking marijuana. When the record demonstrates that the trial court would have revoked probation without regard to an invalid violation, an appellate court will affirm the revocation. See Ogletree v. State, 886 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1998); Haygood v. State, 687 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The appellate court will remand only where it is not clear that the trial court would have imposed the same sentence based…
-
Serban T. Dronca v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 889 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…nt’s conduct was a single incident of poor judgment, which .justified the employer’s termination of the claimant’s employment, but did not amount to misconduct sufficient to deny the claimant benefits. See Powell v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 886 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); McCarty v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 878 So. 2d 432, 435 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Ash v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 872 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to award claimant unemplo…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 728 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Robinson v. State, 744 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Haygood v. State, 687 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)