RYAN CAUDILL, 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.
Florida appellate court vacated judgment finding community control violations and remanded because trial court failed to enter written order specifying which conditions were violated and must reconsider sentencing for the single remaining violation.
A trial court must enter a written order specifying which conditions of community control were violated and must reconsider sentencing when remanding after one violation is upheld.
[1] Trial court must enter written order specifying which conditions of community control were violated, not merely make oral findings, and must reconsider sentencing upon re…
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 intelligenceRyan Caudill was on community control for a felony criminal mischief case. The trial court found violations relating to failure to pay restitution and…
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 Written Findings Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Ryan Caudill appeals from the final judgment finding he violated his community control on a felony criminal mischief case.1 The State concedes error as it relates to the violation of condition 5 based on a positive urinalysis for cocaine. While the trial court found violations relating to the failure to pay restitution, it specifically stated that it would not impose sanctions for these violations. Thus, it becomes unnecessary to determine whether the evidence supported those violations.
The only remaining violation consisted of being out of place without the consent of the community control officer. We find the evidence was sufficient to support this violation. However, we remand to the trial court because, although the court made oral findings as to the various conditions of community control violated, it failed to enter a written order specifying the conditions violated. See Bell v. State, 60 So.3d *629558, 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (remanding for entry of written order specifying conditions violated). Because we cannot ascertain from the face of the record what sentence the court would have handed down for this one violation, on remand the trial court must also determine whether the single violation merits the sentence imposed.
JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED.
PALMER, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ„ concur.