AMERICA HERNANDEZ, 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.
America Hernandez appeals the revocation of her community control for arson conviction based on alleged violations of two conditions. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirmed the finding of a violation of condition 9 (failure to comply with officer instructions) but reversed the finding of a violation of condition 3 (changing residence without consent) due to insufficient evidence, and remanded for reconsideration of the appropriate sentence.
The court affirmed the finding of violation of condition 9 but reversed the finding of violation of condition 3 because the State failed to introduce evidence that the defendant failed to request permission or that permission was denied. The court remanded for the trial court to reconsider whether it would have revoked community control and imposed the 10-year sentence based solely on the condition 9 violation.
[1] A community control officer's instruction to apprise them of a new residence, following a defendant's notification of financial inability to remain in their current resid…
[2] A defendant's failure to contact a supervising officer on the day they leave their former residence can constitute a willful violation of a condition requiring compliance…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“At a revocation hearing, the State has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervision willfully and substantially.”
Establishes the evidentiary standard for community control revocation hearings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHernandez was convicted of arson of a dwelling and placed on community control with conditions including that she could not change residence without h…
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
America Hernandez (the defendant) appeals the trial court's order revoking her community control based on its finding that she substantially and willfully violated conditions 3 and 9 of her community control. We affirm as to condition 9, but reverse on condition 3 and remand for further proceedings.
The defendant was convicted on a charge of arson of a dwelling and was placed on community control. The community control order contained a number of conditions, including that the defendant could not change her residence without obtaining the consent of her supervising officer (condition 3) and that she must comply with all instructions given to her by her supervising officer (condition 9).
The defendant was charged with violating conditions 3 and 9. After holding an evidentiary hearing on the charged violations, the trial court entered a written order, finding that the defendant had violated condition 3 by changing residences without the consent of her community control officer and that she had violated condition 9 by failing to contact her community control officer the day she left her former residence. Ultimately, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 10 years in prison with credit for time served, and this appeal followed.
The defendant contends that there was no competent substantial evidence to support *1014the trial court's finding that she willfully violated conditions 3 and 9. We agree as to condition 3, but disagree as to condition 9.
At a revocation hearing, the State has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervision willfully and substantially. Knight v. State, 187 So.3d 307, 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence, we review the record to determine if competent substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding of a willful and substantial violation. Id.
As to condition 3, the State did not introduce any evidence that the defendant failed to request permission to change her residence or that such permission was denied. In fact, the day before leaving the hotel where she resided, she apprised her community control officer that she lacked the finances to continue staying there. In response, the community control officer told her simply that she needed to apprise him of her new residence. However, as to condition 9, the State's evidence was sufficient to establish a willful violation.
Because the record does not reveal whether the trial court would have revoked the defendant's community control and imposed a sentence of 10 years in prison based solely on the violation of condition 9 listed in the order, we remand for reconsideration. See McDoughall v. State, 133 So.3d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Eubanks v. State, 903 So.2d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED
SAWAYA, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McDOUGHALL v. State, 133 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
- Eubanks v. State, 903 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Davell Kavon Knight v. State, 187 So. 3d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)