From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Montonez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 13, 1999
724 So. 2d 650 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Opinion

No. 97-01636

January 13, 1999.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Bob Anderson Mitcham, Judge.

Terri L. Backhus of Backhus Izakowitz, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

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


Appellant challenges the revocation of his community control and resulting sentence of forty-seven months' incarceration for burglary of a dwelling, third degree grand theft, and grand theft of a firearm. We find no merit in the three issues raised and affirm the revocation and sentence. While the affidavit and amended affidavit of violation of community control allege numerous violations of condition (3) (moving from his approved residence without the consent of his probation officer), condition (9) (failing to report to his community control officer), and condition (12) (failing to remain confined to his approved residence), the revocation order fails to specify which conditions were violated. We therefore remand this case for entry of an order of revocation of community control which delineates the specific conditions appellant was found to have violated. See Dietz v. State, 534 So.2d 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

NORTHCUTT and GREEN, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Montonez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Jan 13, 1999
724 So. 2d 650 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Case details for

Montonez v. State

Case Details

Full title:Jose A. MONTONEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Jan 13, 1999

Citations

724 So. 2d 650 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)

Citing Cases

Williams v. State

Accordingly, we must remand for the entry of an order that delineates the specific conditions Williams was…

Nelson v. State

Since the record before us does not contain a revocation order, we remand with instructions that the trial…