Court Opinion

ID: 9955339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 14:03:07.196709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:35.085435
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-0400
              LT Case No. 16-2016-CF-002779-AXXX
                 _____________________________

KENDELL AMOS WILMORE,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.
Adrian G. Soud, Judge.

William Mallory Kent, of Kent & McFarland, Jacksonville, for
Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross,
Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

                         March 28, 2024

PER CURIAM.

    Kendell Amos Wilmore appeals the trial court’s order
revoking his sex offender probation after finding him in violation
of Special Condition 18 and Standard Condition 19. On appeal,
Wilmore argues, inter alia, that the State failed to present
competent, substantial evidence of either violation. We affirm the
trial court’s finding that Appellant violated Special Condition 18,
mandating electronic monitoring, without further discussion.

     However, we agree that there is no competent, substantial
evidence in our record to support the trial court’s finding that
Wilmore violated Standard Condition 19, which prohibits contact
with a minor. As such, the trial court’s finding that Wilmore
violated Condition 19 is in error. See Stringfield v. State, 254 So.
3d 1127, 1127–28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (“A lower court’s finding of
a willful and substantial violation of probation must be supported
by competent, substantial evidence.” (citation omitted)).

     Based on our record, including the trial court’s focus on the
violation of Standard Condition 19, we cannot determine whether
the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the
same sentence based solely on the violation of Special Condition
18. We therefore reverse the order and remand for
reconsideration. See Niemi v. State, 284 So. 3d 1143, 1145–46 (Fla.
5th DCA 2019).

    We otherwise affirm.

    AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

WALLIS, LAMBERT, and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

                 _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                 2