Filed: May 01, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MARKAS BRIAN NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO WASHINGTON, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, CASE NO. 1D16-1803 v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed May 2, 2017. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Gary L. Bergosh, Judge. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, David Llanes
Summary: IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA MARKAS BRIAN NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO WASHINGTON, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED Appellant, CASE NO. 1D16-1803 v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _/ Opinion filed May 2, 2017. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Gary L. Bergosh, Judge. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, David Llanes,..
More
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
MARKAS BRIAN NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
WASHINGTON, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
Appellant,
CASE NO. 1D16-1803
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed May 2, 2017.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.
Gary L. Bergosh, Judge.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender,
Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, David Llanes, Assistant Attorney General,
Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Mr. Washington appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation based
on the commission of four new law violations (battery, kidnap-false imprisonment,
criminal mischief, and obstructing justice). We affirm except as to the trial court’s
finding that Mr. Washington violated his probation as to kidnapping-false
imprisonment for which there is no basis in the evidence. Because the record is not
clear whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentences of five years to
run consecutively based on the remaining sufficiently proven charges, we remand
for reconsideration of revocation and sentencing. See Davis v. State,
75 So. 3d 386,
388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Although a violation of condition 18 could alone support
revocation, because the record does not establish that the trial court would have
revoked probation and imposed a 15-year sentence on a violation of condition 18
alone, this court is required to remand for the trial court to reconsider its decision to
revoke probation and to impose the same sentence.”)
REVERSE and REMAND.
WOLF, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
2