Gene E. Hanks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gene E. Hanks v. State

237 So. 3d 486

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 26, 2018

Docket5D17-2571

StatusPublished

This text of 237 So. 3d 486 (Gene E. Hanks 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

Gene E. Hanks v. State, 237 So. 3d 486 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

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

GENE EDWARD HANKS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D17-2571

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed March 2, 2018

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Nicole Joanne Martingano, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Gene Edward Hanks, Lake City, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorneys General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Gene Hanks appeals the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court for

violating his community control. We conclude that competent substantial evidence was

presented at trial to support the trial judge’s decision that Hanks willfully and materially violated his community control. However, despite our reminders to trial judges that their

written orders or judgments must identify which condition or conditions of probation or

community control have been violated, we are compelled to remand here because the

written order did not specify the condition of community control that Hanks was found to

have violated. See Lowe v. State, 225 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Biser v. State,

157 So. 3d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Roberts v. State, 76 So. 3d 1047 (Fla. 5th DCA

2011); Bell v. State, 60 So. 3d 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Mormon v. State, 976 So. 2d

1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Brinson v. State, 866 So. 2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment under review and remand for entry of a

proper adjudicatory order listing the specific condition of community control that Hanks

was found to have violated.

JUDGMENT VACATED; REMANDED for entry of a proper adjudication order.

BERGER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.

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