KEVIN BURT, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 affirmed the revocation of community control but reversed to require a written order detailing the violated conditions.
The defendant's community control was revoked based on stipulated testimony showing unauthorized visits. The trial court failed to issue a written ord…
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
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals from an oral order revoking community control. We find no abuse of discretion1 and therefore affirm the sentence imposed on violation of community control. Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
The trial court failed to prepare a written order revoking Appellant’s community control listing the conditions that were violated. Thus, we reverse the trial court to the extent that it must prepare a written order on the violations on remand. Rucker v. State, 890 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Watson v. State, 807 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
. Defendant cites Nelson v. State, 753 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000), where the court held that a defendant's visit to a pawn shop at 5:20 p.m., when he was permitted to remain at work until 5:30 p.m., was not a basis for revocation under a provision that required defendant to “remain confined to [his] approved residence except for one-half hour before and after [his] approved employment, public service work, or any other special activities approved by [his] community control officer.” (Internal quotations omitted.) We find this case distinguishable because the stipulated testimony in this case demonstrates that defendant made the unauthorized visits outside of any time that defendant was authorized for purposes of work or travel.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Nelson v. State, 753 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Cornilius Erick Watson v. State, 807 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Davis v. State, 807 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Burt v. State, 791 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Volanda Lashawn Rucker v. State, 890 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Munoz v. Green E. # 2 Ltd., 890 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)