Case ID: so2d_821/html/1249-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. \n      PADOVANO, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Marcus HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 1D01-0715.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
    July 31, 2002.
    Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Terry Carley, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
    Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Trisha E. Meggs, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Marcus Harris, appellant, challenges the trial court’s order revoking his community control and probation, claiming that the state has not proven that his failure to report was willful and substantial. Because there is no record evidence to support the trial court’s finding that this violation was willful and substantial, we reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate appellant’s sentences and reinstate community control and probation. See Blue v. State, 744 So.2d 543 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Robinson v. State, 744 So.2d 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur; PADOVANO, J., dissents with written opinion.

PADOVANO, J.,

dissenting.

The reporting requirement is a standard condition that is an essential feature of every order placing a defendant on probation or community control. Unlike a special condition that is tailored to a particular case, the reporting requirement is a general condition that is not easily misunderstood. In the present case, the defendant did not report for community control supervision at any time during the period between the completion of the jail portion of his sentence and his arrest on a new criminal charge nearly ten months later. He told the trial judge that he did not know he was supposed to report for community control supervision, but the trial judge rejected this explanation. I think that the record amply supports the trial court’s finding that the violation was willful. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.