Wallace v. State

Full title: Chantay WALLACE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Date published: May 4, 2016

193 So. 3d 64 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

Opinion

No. 3D15–365.

05-04-2016

Chantay WALLACE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Shayne R. Burnham, Assistant Attorney General, and Natasha Pargas, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.

ROTHENBERG, J.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Harvey J. Sepler, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Shayne R. Burnham, Assistant Attorney General, and Natasha Pargas, Certified Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER, and SCALES, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.

Chantay Wallace appeals the trial court's order revoking her probation. The evidence clearly supports the trial court's finding that Wallace willfully and materially violated Condition 5 of her order of probation by committing the crime of petit theft while on probation and Special Condition 18 by failing to complete a domestic violence program and an anger management program. We therefore affirm the trial court's order revoking Wallace's probation and the twenty-four month sentence that was imposed.

We however remand this case, see Young v. State, 4 So.3d 1265, 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), with instructions to the trial court to enter a corrected written order because the trial court's order revoking probation improperly included violations of Conditions 2 and 3 (failure to pay for the cost of supervision and drug testing fees, respectively), where no evidence was presented as to Wallace's ability to pay those fees, and Condition 5 based on Wallace committing two other new law violations besides the previously referred to petit theft, where those additional new law violations were bifurcated and therefore not tried at the probation violation hearing. Resentencing is not required in this case because the sentence imposed was already the lowest sentence permissible under the guidelines and there was neither a motion nor an argument made to depart below the guidelines.

Affirmed and remanded.