RUSSELL PANDOLPH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful And Substantial Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of Appellant’s community control. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the violation of community control was willful and substantial. Robinson v. State, 689 So. 2d 1147, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The state presented more than sufficient evidence from which the trial court could conclude that Appellant was aware of the contents of the permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence, as the evidence showed that Appellant was present in court at the time it was executed.
We also affirm as to the other issues raised by Appellant. The state laid an adequate foundation for the admission of letters written by Appellant, and the trial court did not err by proceeding immediately to sentencing where Appellant had every opportunity to challenge the score sheet but failed to object. We also find no merit in Appellant’s contention that the court erred by giving a sentence inconsistent with the sentence recommended by the victim. Cf. Reed v. State, 616 So. 2d 592, 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
STONE, C.J., and PARIENTE, BARBARA J., and KARLAN, SANDY, Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Begonia Corp. v. NAM Fin. Corp., 724 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…of the court relating to a sale under a final judgment of foreclosure of property in which they have an interest. They previously appealed the foreclosure judgment, and we affirmed it except for a prepayment penalty. Begonia Corp. v. Nam Fin. Corp., 710 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), reh’g denied (Mar. 30, 1998). After our remand there were further proceedings to amend the judgment and have a sale. One sale was set aside and a new one scheduled. A second sale failed because the successful bidder defaulted o…
-
Feinstein v. NEW Bethel Missionary Baptist, 938 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…431, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)(holding that pre-payment clause at issue in note and mortgage “does not ‘specifically’ provide for recovery of the penalty after and in addition to the ‘lender’s acceleration’ ”); see also Begonia Corp. v. Nam Fin. Corp., 710 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(applying the general rule enunciated in Florida Nat’l). As the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division stated when squarely faced with the issue of enforceability of a provision that specifically calls for a prepayment…
Authorities Cited
- Robinson v. State, 689 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Norstrom v. State, 616 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Reed v. State, 616 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)