Pandolph v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pandolph v. State

710 So. 2d 577, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 915, 1998 WL 39407

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 4, 1998

DocketNo. 97-0228

StatusPublished

This text of 710 So. 2d 577 (Pandolph 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

Pandolph v. State, 710 So. 2d 577, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 915, 1998 WL 39407 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the revocation of Appellant’s community control. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the violation of community control was willful and substantial. Robinson v. State, 689 So.2d 1147, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The state presented more than sufficient evidence from which the trial court could conclude that Appellant was aware of the contents of the permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence, as the evidence showed that Appellant was present in court at the time it was executed.

We also affirm as to the other issues raised by Appellant. The state laid an adequate foundation for the admission of letters written by Appellant, and the trial court did not err by proceeding immediately to sentencing where Appellant had every opportunity to challenge the score sheet but failed to object. We also find no merit in Appellant’s contention that the court erred by giving a sentence [578]*578inconsistent with the sentence recommended by the victim. Cf. Reed v. State, 616 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

STONE, C.J., and PARIENTE, BARBARA J., and KARLAN, SANDY, Associate Judges, 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. The evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the violation of community control was willful and substantial. Robinson v. State, 689 So.2d 1147, 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The state presented more than sufficient evidence from which the trial court could conclude that Appellant was aware of the contents of the permanent injunction for protection against domestic violence, as the evidence showed that Appellant was present in court at the time it was executed.

We also affirm as to the other issues raised by Appellant. The state laid an adequate foundation for the admission of letters written by Appellant, and the trial court did not err by proceeding immediately to sentencing where Appellant had every opportunity to challenge the score sheet but failed to object. We also find no merit in Appellant’s contention that the court erred by giving a sentence [578]*578inconsistent with the sentence recommended by the victim. Cf. Reed v. State, 616 So.2d 592, 593 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

STONE, C.J., and PARIENTE, BARBARA J., and KARLAN, SANDY, Associate Judges, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

710 So. 2d 577, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 915, 1998 WL 39407, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pandolph-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack