Pollard v. State, 2D05-527.
| Decision Date | 16 June 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D05-527.,2D05-527. |
| Citation | 930 So.2d 854 |
| Parties | Jamarius POLLARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Judith Ellis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and John M. Klawikofsky, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Jamarius Pollard appeals the revocation of his community control, contending that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had willfully and substantially violated the terms of his community control. We affirm the revocation of Pollard's community control based on the trial court's finding that Pollard willfully and substantially violated conditions 12 and 32. However, we remand for the trial court to strike the finding of a violation of condition 27 because there was insufficient evidence to establish a willful and substantial violation of this condition.
In April 2003, Pollard pleaded guilty to a charge of being a principal to an attempted robbery with a firearm. He was sentenced to six years of youthful offender probation. In June 2004, after the court found that Pollard had violated his probation, Pollard was resentenced to two years of youthful offender community control. In November 2004, the Department of Corrections filed an affidavit of violation of community control contending, among other things, that Pollard had violated condition 27 of his community control. Condition 27 required Pollard to complete 100 hours of community service at the rate of five hours per month during the term of his community control.
At the revocation hearing, Pollard's probation officer testified that Pollard had failed to complete any community service hours in either September or October 2004. However, she admitted that Pollard had already completed seventy-five hours and had only twenty-five hours left to complete during the remaining twenty-two months of his community control. Despite this, the trial court found that Pollard had willfully and substantially violated condition 27 by failing to complete his required community service hours.
In Shipman v. State, 903 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), this court held that the State cannot prove a willful and substantial violation of a condition to complete community service hours, even when the order contains a per-month rate of completion, when the order does not contain a beginning and ending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. State
...no starting or ending date specified in the probation order as well as no evidence of Dean's refusal to perform. See Pollard v. State, 930 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing Shipman v. State, 903 So.2d 386, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)) ("[T]he State cannot prove a willful and substantial ......
-
Martin v. State, 1D05-3471.
...had not yet served fifty hours, he had until the end of his probation to complete the prescribed hours. See Pollard v. State, 930 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("[T]he State cannot prove a willful and substantial violation of a condition to complete community service hours ... when the ......
-
D.F. v. State
...out and sufficient time remains in the probationary period for the probationer to complete the requirement.”); Pollard v. State, 930 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[T]he State cannot prove a willful and substantial violation of a condition to complete community service hours, even when......
-
Reed v. State, 2D12–1809.
...of condition 5 and the four violations of the condition that required him to remain confined to his residence. See Pollard v. State, 930 So.2d 854, 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Ogletree v. State, 886 So.2d 420, 421 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Baker v. State, 789 So.2d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). Final......