DEON MARKEY GLISPY vs STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 3, 2022
• Docket: 21-2172
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

DEON MARKEY GLISPY,

Appellant,

v. Case Nos. 5D21-2172 5D21-2173 LT Case Nos. 2020-CF-022890-A 2019-CF-049435

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed October 3, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, David C. Koenig, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Victoria Rose Cordero, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Whitney Brown Hartless, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. Deon Markey Glispy appeals the judgment and sentence imposed

following the violation and revocation of his community control. We review

the trial court’s finding of a violation of community control for competent,

substantial evidence. See Kegler v. State, 313 So. 3d 824, 827 (Fla. 2d DCA

2021). Glispy had been placed on community control in connection with two

criminal convictions, including the sale of cocaine. Sixteen days later, he

was arrested for—among other things—selling cocaine. Competent,

substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings on these multiple

new law violations.

The trial court erred, however, when it concluded that Glispy had

violated community control by failing to remain confined in his home. This

condition had exceptions for work-related travel, public service work, or

special activities. The State did not elicit any competent, substantial

evidence to support this violation. The community control officer did not

testify; the State presented no evidence that Glispy’s absence from home

had not been approved.

Because it is clear the trial court was focused on Glispy’s drug-related

violations and not his failure to remain at home, a remand for resentencing

is unnecessary. See Payet v. State, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D1705, D1705 (Fla.

5th DCA Aug. 12, 2022). We therefore affirm the trial court’s revocation of

2 Glispy’s community control but remand for it to strike its finding that Glispy

violated condition sixteen of his community control.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

EVANDER, EISNAUGLE and TRAVER, JJ., concur.