Hannah v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hannah v. State

934 So. 2d 665, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13027, 2006 WL 2191975

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 4, 2006

DocketNo. 2D05-4122

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 934 So. 2d 665 (Hannah 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

Hannah v. State, 934 So. 2d 665, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13027, 2006 WL 2191975 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Thaddeus Hannah appeals a final order revoking his community control. We strike the court’s finding that Mr. Hannah violated condition eight because the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Mr. Hannah willfully and substantially violated this condition. See Oates v. State, 872 So.2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Hanania v. State, 855 So.2d 92, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). However, the State proved that Mr. Hannah willfully and substantially violated conditions nine and twelve of his community control. Because we conclude the trial court would have exercised the discretion to revoke Mr. Hannah’s community control based on the violations of conditions nine and twelve, we affirm the order revoking probation. On remand, the revocation order should be amended to show violations of conditions nine and twelve only.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Thaddeus Hannah appeals a final order revoking his community control. We strike the court’s finding that Mr. Hannah violated condition eight because the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Mr. Hannah willfully and substantially violated this condition. See Oates v. State, 872 So.2d 351 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Hanania v. State, 855 So.2d 92, 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)). However, the State proved that Mr. Hannah willfully and substantially violated conditions nine and twelve of his community control. Because we conclude the trial court would have exercised the discretion to revoke Mr. Hannah’s community control based on the violations of conditions nine and twelve, we affirm the order revoking probation. On remand, the revocation order should be amended to show violations of conditions nine and twelve only.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

934 So. 2d 665, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13027, 2006 WL 2191975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hannah-v-state-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack