Remich v. State, 95-04111

Decision Date02 July 1997
Docket NumberNo. 95-04111,95-04111
Citation696 So.2d 1270
Parties22 Fla. L. Weekly D1606 Todd REMICH, a/k/a Todd Remick, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Assistant Public Defender, Clearwater, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Johnny Salgado, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

QUINCE, Judge.

Appellant, Todd Remich, challenges an order revoking his community control. We affirm the trial court's revocation of Remich's community control on one of the two grounds orally pronounced at the revocation hearing, but remand to the trial court for entry of a written order of revocation.

Remich was charged with burglary and grand theft in violation of sections 810.02(3) and 812.014, Florida Statutes (1993), and entered into a negotiated plea agreement. Pursuant to the negotiated plea, Remich was placed on community control for one year, and probation for two years, to run concurrently. After Remich had served six months' community control, his community control officer filed an affidavit charging him with violating his community control by failing to return to and remain at home during designated hours and failing to appear at scheduled meetings with the community control officer.

Condition nine of Remich's community control provided that he was to report to his community control officer at least once a week or as otherwise directed by his community control officer. Condition ten provided that Remich be confined to his residence except for one-half hour before and after his approved employment, public service work, or any other special activities approved by the community control officer. At the revocation hearing, Remich admitted substantially all of the allegations in the violation affidavit, but denied that those acts constituted willful violations of the conditions of his community control.

We reverse the trial court's determination as to condition nine. While failure to report to the community control officer provides a basis for revocation of community control, there is substantial evidence in the record that Remich's violations of this condition are excusable because of a lack of transportation. Harris v. State, 610 So.2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (unintentional failure to meet with community control officer was not misconduct); Haynes v. State, 571 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)(failure to make financial payments which was a condition of probation was not a ground to revoke probation if the defendant could not afford payments); Scott v. State, 485 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)(defendant who made reasonable effort to comply with community control, violation was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mier v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 22 Marzo 2011
    ...v. State, 768 So.2d 1234, 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Butler v. State, 775 So.2d 320, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Remich v. State, 696 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); and Stevens v. State, 599 So.2d 254 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). However, to the extent that Meade and the cases on which it relied st......
  • Meade v. State, 1D01-0168.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 16 Noviembre 2001
    ...classes because of transportation problems does not constitute a willful and substantial probation violation); Remich v. State, 696 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (no willful violation of condition of probation because failure to report to community control officer was excusable based ......
  • Watson v. State, 96-03386
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 28 Agosto 1998
    ...remand the trial court shall enter an order specifying the conditions of community control that Watson violated. See Remich v. State, 696 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Second, we note that the trial court erred by including the violation of community control as an additional offense ......
  • Fields v. State, 97-05298.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 30 Junio 1999
    ...erred by failing to render an order setting forth the specific conditions of probation that Fields violated. See Remich v. State, 696 So.2d 1270, 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, upon remand, we direct the trial court to enter a proper order setting forth the specific conditions that F......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT