KEVIN PRATT
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 probationer's unauthorized change of residence constitutes a willful and substantial violation of probation, and the trial court may revoke probation based on a finding of dangerousness, but must enter a written order with factual findings tied to statutory factors.
[1] A trial court revoking probation based on dangerousness must enter a written order containing factual findings that tie the dangerousness determination to the applicable…
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 intelligencePratt was on probation and changed his residence without prior approval from his probation officer. The trial court found he willfully and substantial…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
KEVIN PRATT, Appellant,
V.
STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
No. 4D2025-1054
[November 4, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ari Abraham Porth, Judge; L.T. Case No. 062011CF017904A88810.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Erika E. Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Richard Valuntas, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court's finding that Pratt willfully and substantially violated probation by changing his residence without prior approval. The record supports the court's determination that Pratt posed a danger to the community. We further affirm the resulting judgment and sentence.
However, because the written danger order does not set forth factual findings tying the dangerousness determination to the applicable statutory factors, we remand for entry of a written order containing the requisite factual findings and a corrected written revocation order identifying the condition of probation violated.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
GROSS, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.