JAMES NORMAN KING, 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.
James King appeals the revocation of his community control. The court affirmed the revocation based on violations of conditions 3, 5, 9, and 12, but reversed and remanded to strike the finding of a violation of condition 27 because the State failed to meet its burden of proving King willfully and substantially violated that condition.
The court affirmed the revocation based on violations of conditions 3, 5, 9, and 12, which were serious violations including failure to remain confined to residence and committing a new crime. However, the court reversed the finding regarding condition 27 because documentation of community service hours was not an express condition, and the State failed to meet its burden of proving a willful and substantial violation.
[1] A finding of violation of a community control condition is not supported by the greater weight of the evidence when the only evidence of violation pertains to a failure t…
[2] A trial court's revocation of community control will be affirmed if supported by at least one violation, even if other alleged violations are reversed on appeal.
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“The State failed to meet its burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of condition 27 by the greater weight of the evidence.”
Establishes the standard for proving violations of community control conditions and the evidentiary burden placed on the State
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing was on community control with various conditions, including condition 27 requiring completion of 100 hours of community service at 5 hours per mo…
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 Greater Weight Of The Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
In this appeal, briefed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), James King challenges the revocation of his community control. We affirm without comment that portion of the trial court’s order finding violations of conditions 3, 5, 9, and 12. We also affirm the trial court’s revocation based on those violations. We reverse and remand only to strike the court’s finding that King violated condition 27.
Condition 27 required King to complete 100 hours of community service at any approved community site at the rate of 5 hours per month. At the revocation hearing, King’s community control officer testified that King failed to submit any documentation of completion for the months of February and March 2004.
However, documentation of community service hours was not an express condition of community control. The only evidence as to whether King actually completed his community service was witness Mary Doan’s and King’s testimony that he did. The State failed to meet its burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of condition 27 by the greater weight of the evidence. See Richter v. State, 697 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“First, documentation of community service hours was not an actual condition of probation. Although it may have been implied, it was not expressly stated in condition (n).
Second, even if failure to document were a violation, it cannot be considered substantial when one compares that omission with the actual performance of the 100 hours of service.”).
Therefore, we reverse that portion of the trial court’s order finding a violation of condition 27 and remand to strike the finding.
We affirm the trial court’s revocation of King’s community control because it is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked King’s community control based on his violations of conditions 3, 5, 9, and 12. See Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). During the revocation hearing, the trial court specifically stated, “I can’t overlook these violations. These are serious violations. Failing to remain confined to your residence [condition 12] [and] committing a new crime while on community control [condition 5] [are] serious violations.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
DAVIS and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bryant v. State, 931 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ervice hours does not constitute a violation of condition 27. Condition 27 requires the probationer to actually perform the community service work. “[D]oeumentation of community service hours was not an actual condition of probation.” King v. State, 915 So. 2d 764, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Richter v. State, 697 So. 2d 939, 940 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Thus, Bryant’s failure to submit documentation of his community service hours cannot support a finding that he violated condition 27 of his probation, which…
-
Livingstone v. State, 268 So. 3d 252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…ther violations, we reverse only the portion of the revocation order finding Livingstone in violation of condition four and remand with instructions to strike that violation; we affirm the revocation order in all other aspects. See King v. State, 915 So. 2d 764, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) ("[W]e reverse that portion of the trial court's order finding a violation of condition 27 and remand to strike the finding. We affirm the trial court's revocation of King's [supervision] because it is clear from the recor…
-
Malamatos v. State, 264 So. 3d 1151 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…- willfully and substantially violated condition 5 of his probation. However, we remand for the trial court to strike the finding that Malamatos violated condition 8 of his probation and to enter a corrected revocation order. See King v. State, 915 So. 2d 764, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (concluding that the State failed to meet its burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of the community service hours condition of probation, affirming the revocation of probation, and remanding for the trial…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Richter v. State, 697 So. 2d 939 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)