Mackey v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mackey v. State

778 So. 2d 1090, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2474, 2001 WL 219106

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 7, 2001

DocketNos. 4D00-2117, 4D00-2118

StatusPublished

This text of 778 So. 2d 1090 (Mackey 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

Mackey v. State, 778 So. 2d 1090, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2474, 2001 WL 219106 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of appellant’s community control due to his discharge from a residential substance abuse treatment program. Unlike the probationer in Rainer v. Stale, 657 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the evidence supported the conclusion that appellant’s discharge from the program was due to behavior within his control. In this regard, this case is more analagous to Edgerton v. State, 703 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In Edgerton, the court affirmed a revocation of [1091]*1091probation, observing that while the probationer had several physical ailments, the state’s evidence was that the probationer’s medical problems did not cause his failure to comply with program rules. Here, appellant’s leg injury did not cause him to show disrespect to program staff, to contact the victim in violation of his probation, and to break the program’s phone rules after being warned about his behavior.

Although the trial court orally ruled in this case, we remand the case for the trial court to enter a written order explaining its reasons for the revocation. See Urquiola v. State, 746 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of appellant’s community control due to his discharge from a residential substance abuse treatment program. Unlike the probationer in Rainer v. Stale, 657 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the evidence supported the conclusion that appellant’s discharge from the program was due to behavior within his control. In this regard, this case is more analagous to Edgerton v. State, 703 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). In Edgerton, the court affirmed a revocation of [1091]*1091probation, observing that while the probationer had several physical ailments, the state’s evidence was that the probationer’s medical problems did not cause his failure to comply with program rules. Here, appellant’s leg injury did not cause him to show disrespect to program staff, to contact the victim in violation of his probation, and to break the program’s phone rules after being warned about his behavior.

Although the trial court orally ruled in this case, we remand the case for the trial court to enter a written order explaining its reasons for the revocation. See Urquiola v. State, 746 So.2d 1206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).

STEVENSON, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

778 So. 2d 1090, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 2474, 2001 WL 219106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mackey-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack