BRITTANY NICHOLE ROSSI
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court acts within its broad discretion in revoking community control when it finds, after hearing witness testimony and assessing credibility, that the defendant willfully violated the terms of community control.
[1] Absence from a residence without permission in violation of community control terms constitutes a sufficient basis for revocation, and whether the violation should be exc…
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 intelligence“While this discretion is not unbridled and should not be arbitrarily exercised, it is necessarily broad and extensive in order that the interests of society may be protected against a repeating offender or one who disregards the conditions stipulated for his remaining at large.”
Explaining the scope of trial court discretion in revoking community control
Brittany Nichole Rossi was placed on community control and violated its terms, including leaving the county of residence without permission and being …
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
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed July 16, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-0152 Lower Tribunal Nos. F19-4260, F19-4261, F19-17830 ________________
Brittany Nichole Rossi, Appellant,
vs.
State of Florida, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ellen Sue Venzer, Judge.
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Shannon Hemmendinger, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Daihana Chang, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS1 and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Probation and community control are a matter of grace—not a right. See Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490, 494 (Fla. 1974). The trial court has broad discretion to provide that grace. Id. It equally has broad discretion to revoke it. Id. at 495. Accord Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222, 229 (Fla. 2007). “While this discretion is not unbridled and should not be arbitrarily exercised, it is necessarily broad and extensive in order that the interests of society may be protected against a repeating offender or one who disregards the conditions stipulated for his remaining at large.” State ex rel. Roberts v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 597, 599 (Fla. 1962).
After hearing from several witnesses and assessing their credibility, the trial court found that Appellant Brittany Nichole Rossi willfully violated her community control.2 See generally § 948.001(3), Fla. Stat. (2019). While there may have been reasons for the violation, the trial court acted within its discretion by revoking her community control. See State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla. 2002) (“The trial court is in a better position to identify the probation violator’s motive, intent, and attitude and assess whether the violation is both willful and substantial.”); Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936, 937
(Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“Absence from the home without permission supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation of community control. Whether Appellant should be excused for leaving is a matter within the trial court’s sound discretion.”); Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183, 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“It is undisputed that the defendant was away from his residence without permission, contrary to the terms of the community control order. This is a sufficient basis for the revocation of community control. Whether, under the circumstances, the defendant’s violation should have been excused was a matter for the discretion of the trial court.”) (internal citations omitted). Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)
- Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2007)
- State ex rel. Lewis Roberts v. Cochran, 140 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1962)
- Porras v. State, 651 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Lopez v. State, 722 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)