Mills v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mills v. State

150 So. 3d 272, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17601, 2014 WL 5461968

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 29, 2014

DocketNo. 2D13-1859

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 So. 3d 272 (Mills 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

Mills v. State, 150 So. 3d 272, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17601, 2014 WL 5461968 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Edward Marcus Mills, III, appeals a single order revoking his orders of supervision in six separate cases.¹ As a result of the revocations of supervision, Mr. Mills is now serving a large number of concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which is eight years. We affirm the revocation but remand for the entry of corrected revocation orders.

During the revocation hearing, the trial court relied exclusively on Mr. Mills’ admission that he had violated condition five of the standard conditions of supervision for each of his orders of supervision. This admission involved Mr. Mills’ use and possession of marijuana at a time when he was subject to these supervisory orders. As correctly argued by Mr. Mills, the written order of revocation erroneously lists violations of conditions “9,16, [and] Special Condition 2,” even though he admitted violating only condition five. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Mr. Mills’ orders of supervision, but we remand for the trial court to enter corrected revocation orders that include only a violation of condition five as the basis for the revocation.²

Affirmed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

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

ALTENBERND, Judge.

Edward Marcus Mills, III, appeals a single order revoking his orders of supervision in six separate cases.¹ As a result of the revocations of supervision, Mr. Mills is now serving a large number of concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest of which is eight years. We affirm the revocation but remand for the entry of corrected revocation orders.

During the revocation hearing, the trial court relied exclusively on Mr. Mills’ admission that he had violated condition five of the standard conditions of supervision for each of his orders of supervision. This admission involved Mr. Mills’ use and possession of marijuana at a time when he was subject to these supervisory orders. As correctly argued by Mr. Mills, the written order of revocation erroneously lists violations of conditions “9,16, [and] Special Condition 2,” even though he admitted violating only condition five. Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Mr. Mills’ orders of supervision, but we remand for the trial court to enter corrected revocation orders that include only a violation of condition five as the basis for the revocation.²

Affirmed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 So. 3d 272, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 17601, 2014 WL 5461968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mills-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack