Blair v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blair v. State

745 So. 2d 496, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15598, 1999 WL 1049358

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 22, 1999

DocketNo. 99-1212

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 745 So. 2d 496 (Blair v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blair v. State, 745 So. 2d 496, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15598, 1999 WL 1049358 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a revocation of appellant’s community control and resentenc-ing, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he had violated standard condition seven of his community control. Appellant claims that insufficient evidence was presented to prove that particular violation. In accordance with the dictates of Alston v. State, 646 So.2d 184 (Fla.1994), we must reverse.

While we must reverse, we note, as did the supreme court in Alston, that the single admitted instance of unlawful drug use in this case would constitute sufficient evidence that appellant violated standard condition five of his community control which required him to “live without violating the law.” See id. at 185. We, therefore, advise the state that nothing in our opinion today precludes it from initiating new revocation proceedings against appellant, pri- or to the expiration of his community control, based on a properly charged violation of standard condition five. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOANOS, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a revocation of appellant’s community control and resentenc-ing, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he had violated standard condition seven of his community control. Appellant claims that insufficient evidence was presented to prove that particular violation. In accordance with the dictates of Alston v. State, 646 So.2d 184 (Fla.1994), we must reverse.

While we must reverse, we note, as did the supreme court in Alston, that the single admitted instance of unlawful drug use in this case would constitute sufficient evidence that appellant violated standard condition five of his community control which required him to “live without violating the law.” See id. at 185. We, therefore, advise the state that nothing in our opinion today precludes it from initiating new revocation proceedings against appellant, pri- or to the expiration of his community control, based on a properly charged violation of standard condition five. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

JOANOS, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 So. 2d 496, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15598, 1999 WL 1049358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blair-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack