Court Opinion

ID: 9554552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 15:05:40.509081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:35:29.543491
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                             FOURTH DISTRICT

                   MICHAEL JOSEPH DEMPSEY, III,
                            Appellant,

                                     v.

                          STATE OF FLORIDA,
                               Appellee.

                              No. 4D22-647

                             [August 9, 2023]

  Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
Lucie County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 562020CF000271A
and 562019CF002266A.

  Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

   Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay A. Warner,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

DAMOORGIAN, J.

   Michael Joseph Dempsey, III (“Defendant”) appeals the two orders of
revocation of community control entered in two separate cases. Both
revocation orders were entered on March 7, 2022. Finding no merit to
Defendant’s arguments on appeal for reversal, we affirm without further
comment. Nonetheless, we are compelled to remand with instructions to
correct both revocation orders because, as the State concedes, the orders
identify a condition of community control which the State failed to prove
Defendant violated.

    After a hearing on Defendant’s violation of community control, the trial
court made oral findings and entered a written order that provided, inter
alia, the specific conditions of community control which Defendant had
violated. Thereafter, on March 7, 2022, the trial court entered two nunc
pro tunc orders of revocation of community control, both of which included
violations of Standard Condition 16—failing to remain confined at an
approved residence. However, as the State has conceded, no evidence or
findings pertained to a violation of Standard Condition 16.
    Accordingly, we affirm the orders revoking Defendant’s community
control and the corresponding sentences, but remand solely for entry of
corrected revocation orders removing Standard Condition 16 as a ground
for revocation. See Henry v. State, 313 So. 3d 757, 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
(affirming the order revoking community control and the corresponding
sentence but remanding for entry of a corrected revocation order to
accurately reflect the correct conditions that were violated).

   Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

WARNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

                           *        *         *

   Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                    2