Case ID: so3d_206/html/0165-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Justin Alan KASE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Case No. 2D15-4994
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Opinion filed December 14, 2016
    
      Howard L. Dimtnig, II, Public Defender, and Pamela H. Izakowitz, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
    Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Brandon R. Christian, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.
   PER CURIAM.

Justin Alan Ease appeals an order revoking his probationary sentence for driving while his license was suspended or revoked. He argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation because the State failed to establish a willful and substantial violation of probation. On October 22, 2015, the trial court imposed Mr. Ease’s new sentence of 364 days in the county jail. We are informed that Mr. Ease was released from jail on March 1, 2016.

We agree with Mr. Ease that the trial court erred in finding that Mr. Ease had committed a willful and substantial violation of probationary condition 3 for moving from his approved residence without permission. However, the record supports the trial court’s finding that Mr. Ease committed a willful and substantial violation of condition 9 by failing to report to the probation office as instructed. The trial court’s comments leave no doubt that it would have revoked Mr. Ease’s probation based solely on the violation of condition 9. Thus we need not remand for the trial court to consider whether it would have revoked Mr. Ease’s probation based solely on the violation of condition 9. See Brown v. State, 6 So.3d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (affirming an order revoking probation after determining one of the grounds for revocation was improper when it was clear that the trial court would have revoked the appellant’s probation on the remaining ground).

Accordingly, we affirm the order revoking Mr. Ease’s probation and his sentence. We remand this case to the trial court to strike the finding of a violation of condition 3 from the order of revocation. See id.

Affirmed; remanded for correction of order.

NORTHCUTT, WALLACE, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.