JERRI WRIGHT, 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.
Jerri Wright appealed her community control violation conviction on the grounds that the trial court failed to specify which conditions she violated and that the state presented insufficient evidence for three of the four alleged violations. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the revocation order failed to identify specific violations and that hearsay evidence alone was insufficient to prove violations for two counts, while the fourth count had no evidence presented at all.
The appellate court held that the revocation order must be reversed because it failed to specify the specific violations found. Additionally, hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to establish violations of community control conditions (allegations II and III), and the state presented no evidence whatsoever for allegation IV. The case is remanded for the trial court to make specific findings on the remaining allegation and determine if that violation alone warrants the sentence imposed.
[1] A willful and substantial violation of community control conditions warrants revocation.
[2] Failure to report to a community control officer may be excused if the defendant lacks transportation and makes reasonable efforts to comply.
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“When "the order of revocation fails to specify the specific violations found, it must be reversed for that reason alone."”
Establishes the standard that revocation orders must identify specific violations or be reversed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright was charged with four counts of violating community control. At the hearing, the trial court orally found a willful and substantial violation b…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence For Probation Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A four-count affidavit of violation of community control was filed against appellant, Jerri Wright. After a hearing, the trial court orally found there was a willful and substantial violation. After the written sentencing order was entered, appellant filed a notice of appeal and thereafter filed in the trial court a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 8.800(b)(2). In the motion, appellant asserted that the trial court never entered a written order on the violation of community control and that there was no evidence introduced at the hearing on the fourth count which alleged her failure to pay her costs of supervision. The trial court subsequently entered an order stating that the motion was denied by operation of law.
While this appeal was pending, this court relinquished jurisdiction for the trial court to enter a written order on the violation of community control. The trial court entered an Order of Violation of Community Control which made the same finding which it had orally made but did not state which conditions it found appellant had violated.
On appeal appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to enter an order specifying which conditions it found appellant violated. We agree. When “the order of revocation fails to specify the specific violations found, it must be reversed for that reason alone.” Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Appellant also asserts that the state failed to present sufficient evidence that she had violated allegations II, III and TV. In allegations II and III, the state alleged appellant violated the condition of community control that she remain confined to her approved residence during certain hours of the day. In its attempt to prove these violations, the only evidence presented by the state was hearsay in the form of two receipts in someone else’s name from two department stores which showed that someone had made purchases at a time when appellant was supposed to be at home. “Hearsay, though admissible in a probation revocation hearing, is insufficient standing alone to establish a violation of a condition of probation.” Nadeau v. State, 920 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Wilcox v. State, 770 So. 2d 733, 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)). The evidence presented by the state was insufficient to support violations in allegations II and III.
With respect to allegation IV for failure to pay her costs of supervision, the record shows the state did not present any evidence of a violation. Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to make specific findings on the violation of allegation I and to determine if that violation alone warrants the imposition of the same sentence.
Reversed and Remanded.
WARNER, KLEIN and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Musto v. State, 174 So. 3d 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific [*570] conditions of probation that were violated. King v. State, 46 So. 3d 1171, 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); see also Wright v. State, 958 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (same rule applies for revocation of community control). Because the order of revocation of community control in the present case does not specify the conditions that Musto violated, and because we are affirming the revocati…
-
Stickney v. State, 263 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…at probation conditions were violated. See Musto v. State, 174 So. 3d 568, 569-70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). “When ‘the order of revocation fails to specify the specific violations found, it must be reversed for that reason alone.’” Wright v. State, 958 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)). But if the basis of the revocation can be verified from the hearing transcript and other court documents, the matter should be remanded for entry of…
-
Ronkevis Williams v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…CA 2010) (“If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written order noting the specific conditions of probation that were violated.”). The state agrees reversal and remand is warranted. See Wright v. State, 958 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697, 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter an amended revocation order listing the specific conditions of probation violated. Appellant’s pre…
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
- Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- M.B. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 770 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Nadeau v. State, 920 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)