DEON MARKEY GLISPY
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 community control violation based on failure to remain confined at home requires competent, substantial evidence presented by the State, and absent such evidence, that particular violation finding must be stricken even when the revocation is otherwise supported by other violations.
[1] Revocation of community control based on a specific violation requires competent, substantial evidence presented by the State, and when such evidence is absent for a part…
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“The State did not elicit any competent, substantial evidence to support this violation. The community control officer did not testify; the State presented no evidence that Glispy's absence from home had not been approved.”
Court explaining why the home confinement violation finding was erroneous
Glispy was placed on community control following convictions including cocaine sale; sixteen days later he was arrested for selling cocaine and other …
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 Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Deon Markey Glispy appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following the violation and revocation of his community control. We review the trial court’s finding of a violation of community control for competent, substantial evidence. See Kegler v. State, 313 So. 3d 824, 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021). Glispy had been placed on community control in connection with two criminal convictions, including the sale of cocaine. Sixteen days later, he was arrested for—among other things—selling cocaine. Competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings on these multiple new law violations.
The trial court erred, however, when it concluded that Glispy had violated community control by failing to remain confined in his home. This condition had exceptions for work-related travel, public service work, or special activities. The State did not elicit any competent, substantial evidence to support this violation. The community control officer did not testify; the State presented no evidence that Glispy’s absence from home had not been approved.
Because it is clear the trial court was focused on Glispy’s drug-related violations and not his failure to remain at home, a remand for resentencing is unnecessary. See Payet v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1705, D1705 (Fla. 5th DCA Aug. 12, 2022). We therefore affirm the trial court’s revocation of Glispy’s community control but remand for it to strike its finding that Glispy violated condition sixteen of his community control. AFFIRMED and REMANDED. EVANDER, EISNAUGLE and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Glispy v. State, 313 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Glispy v. State, 313 So. 3d 824 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)