Cranz v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cranz v. State

854 So. 2d 843, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14361, 2003 WL 22188064

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 24, 2003

DocketNo. 3D02-3105

StatusPublished

This text of 854 So. 2d 843 (Cranz 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

Cranz v. State, 854 So. 2d 843, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14361, 2003 WL 22188064 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case the defendant’s community control was held to have been violated (1) for being briefly absent from his residence to retrieve a birthday present from his parked car for his son, and (2) for being only a short distance away buying cigarettes. Defendant was otherwise complying with community control and all other special terms and conditions of his probation and the trial judge expressed his belief in the defendant’s explanation for his absences from the home. The greater weight of the evidence did not show that the two acts should have been considered as a willful and substantial violation of the community control. McCray v. State, 754 So.2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dassau v. State, 731 So.2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Inept or negligent conduct is insufficient to demonstrate willfulness. McCray, supra, at 778.

Accordingly, the revocation of defendant’s community control is reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case the defendant’s community control was held to have been violated (1) for being briefly absent from his residence to retrieve a birthday present from his parked car for his son, and (2) for being only a short distance away buying cigarettes. Defendant was otherwise complying with community control and all other special terms and conditions of his probation and the trial judge expressed his belief in the defendant’s explanation for his absences from the home. The greater weight of the evidence did not show that the two acts should have been considered as a willful and substantial violation of the community control. McCray v. State, 754 So.2d 776 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dassau v. State, 731 So.2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Inept or negligent conduct is insufficient to demonstrate willfulness. McCray, supra, at 778.

Accordingly, the revocation of defendant’s community control is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

854 So. 2d 843, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 14361, 2003 WL 22188064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cranz-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack