Lizotte v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lizotte v. State

950 So. 2d 514, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3686

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 13, 2007

DocketNos. 1D06-1784, 1D06-1787, 1D06-1788, 1D06-1790

StatusPublished

This text of 950 So. 2d 514 (Lizotte 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

Lizotte v. State, 950 So. 2d 514, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3686 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We hold that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant substantially, willfully violated Condition (5) of his probation orders by failing to live and remain at liberty without violating any law by committing the offense of burglary. Appellant concedes the evidence supported a finding that he violated Special Condition (16) by failing to perform the required public service hours.

The state concedes the trial judge erred in finding appellant violated condition (1), failing to report to the probation officer. Further, the trial judge did not make an oral pronouncement as to the remaining violations set forth in the order revoking probation.

In light of appellant’s substantial violation of the orders of probation by committing the new offense, together with the appellant’s violation in failing to perform the required public service hours, we find it unnecessary to remand for reconsideration of the issue of revocation. We remand, however, with directions for the trial court to amend the written revocation order by striking the remaining conditions. Vanstraten v. State, 901 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Taylor v. State, 840 So.2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

BARFIELD, BENTON, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We hold that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant substantially, willfully violated Condition (5) of his probation orders by failing to live and remain at liberty without violating any law by committing the offense of burglary. Appellant concedes the evidence supported a finding that he violated Special Condition (16) by failing to perform the required public service hours.

The state concedes the trial judge erred in finding appellant violated condition (1), failing to report to the probation officer. Further, the trial judge did not make an oral pronouncement as to the remaining violations set forth in the order revoking probation.

In light of appellant’s substantial violation of the orders of probation by committing the new offense, together with the appellant’s violation in failing to perform the required public service hours, we find it unnecessary to remand for reconsideration of the issue of revocation. We remand, however, with directions for the trial court to amend the written revocation order by striking the remaining conditions. Vanstraten v. State, 901 So.2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Taylor v. State, 840 So.2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

BARFIELD, BENTON, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

950 So. 2d 514, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 3686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lizotte-v-state-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack