DAVION SANDERS
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 positive drug test does not constitute evidence that a probationer violated a condition prohibiting association with persons known to engage in criminal activity.
[1] A positive drug test alone does not constitute evidence that a probationer violated a condition prohibiting association with persons known to engage in criminal activity.
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“evidence of a positive drug test did not support a finding that Sanders violated this condition”
The court's explanation of why the association condition violation was unsupported
Davion Sanders was on probation with multiple conditions, including one prohibiting association with persons known to engage in criminal activity. The…
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 Concurrent Vs. Consecutive Sentences cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
DAVION SANDERS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-1133
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed February 8, 2019
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Morgan Laur Reinman, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Sean Kevin Gravel, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Davion Sanders appeals the judgment and sentence entered against him after the trial court found that he violated several conditions of his probation. We affirm in all respects, except for the finding that Sanders violated condition six of his probation. As to condition six, which prohibited Sanders from associating with a person known to engage
2 in criminal activity, the State concedes, and we agree, that evidence of a positive drug test did not support a finding that Sanders violated this condition. See Cromartie v. State, 241 So. 3d 970, 971 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Such error is fundamental. See Odom v. State, 15 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Nevertheless, we find that it is clear from the record that the trial court would have made the same decision to revoke Sanders' probation and sentence him accordingly1 had it properly found that there was no evidence Sanders associated with a person engaged in criminal activity. Id. (citing Reed v. State, 127 So. 3d 817, 819–20 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)). Accordingly, we affirm Sanders' judgment and sentence but remand with directions that the trial court strike that portion of the order finding a violation of condition six. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. BERGER, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Odom v. State, 15 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Reed v. State, 127 So. 3d 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Cromartie v. State, 241 So. 3d 970 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)