KOSHA ROBINSON, 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.
Kosha Robinson appeals the revocation of his community control sentence. The court affirmed the revocation on the merits but remanded because the trial court failed to enter a formal written order specifying which conditions were violated, and also incorrectly applied a "shock the conscience" standard instead of the preponderance of the evidence standard.
The court affirmed the trial court's determination that Robinson violated community control, but reversed and remanded because: (1) the trial court failed to enter a formal written order specifying the conditions violated, requiring remand for entry of a proper order; and (2) the trial court incorrectly applied a "shock the conscience" standard when the applicable standard is preponderance of the evidence.
[1] A trial court must enter a formal, written order specifying the conditions of community control that a defendant has violated.
[2] A handwritten notation on a disposition order is insufficient to satisfy the requirement for a written order of revocation of community control.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court never entered a formal, written statement outlining the specific conditions Defendant was found to have violated, and instead only made a hand-written notation on the disposition order stating that the court found: "willful and substantial and material violations on allegations II[and] III." This was insufficient”
Establishes the procedural defect requiring remand—failure to enter formal written order specifying violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKosha Robinson was under community control supervision. The trial court found him in violation of community control on allegations II and III, though …
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
Defendant, Kosha Robinson, appeals the trial court’s revocation of his community control and resulting sentence. Finding no issue of arguable merit, we affirm the trial court’s order revoking Defendant’s community control. However, the trial court never entered a formal, written statement outlining the specific conditions Defendant was found to have violated, and instead only made a hand-written notation on the disposition order stating that the court found: “willful and substantial and material violations on allegations II[and] III.” This was insufficient, and we remand this case to the trial court for entry of a written order of revocation of community control, specifying the conditions Defendant was found to have violated. See M.A.L. v. State, 110 So.3d 493, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); A.T.J.F. v. State, 78 So.3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Cato v. State, 845 So.2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (finding that if a formal written order does not exist, it is appropriate to “remand for entry of a proper order ”).
Further, we note that at the conclusion of the testimony the trial court’s oral pronouncement stated: “The standard before the Court is does it shock the conscience of the Court and preponderance of the evidence standard.” The Court went on to state: “[Defendant] shocked the conscience of the Court. It’s been proven by ... it’s been proven by the preponderance of the evidence on those two that I stated on the record.”
Although this statement amounted to harmless error in the context of this ease, we remind the trial court that the standard of proof for finding a violation of community control is whether the violation is established by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, a trial court may revoke a defendant’s community control upon a determination that the “greater weight of the evidence supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation.” Dundas v. State, 891 So.2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Whether or not the violation “shocks the conscience of the Court” is irrelevant to the ultimate finding.
Reversed and Remanded.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GROSS and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tawnyamae Crichton v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Smith Michel v. State, 110 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)
- Harris v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- A.T.J.F. v. State, 78 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Ponce Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Dundas v. State, 891 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)