Ryan Caudill v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2013 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RYAN CAUDILL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D12-2316 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 18, 2013 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, David Dugan, Judge. James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and L. Charlene Matthews, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Ryan Caudill appeals from the final judgment finding he violated his community control on a felony criminal mischief case.1 The State concedes error as it relates to the violation of condition 5 based on a positive urinalysis for cocaine. While the trial court found violations relating to the failure to pay restitution, it specifically stated that it would 1 Caudill was also on concurrent probation on two misdemeanor charges. not impose sanctions for these violations. Thus, it becomes unnecessary to determine whether the evidence supported those violations. The only remaining violation consisted of being out of place without the consent of the community control officer. We find the evidence was sufficient to support this violation. However, we remand to the trial court because, although the court made oral findings as to the various conditions of community control violated, it failed to enter a written order specifying the conditions violated. See Bell v. State, 60 So. 3d 558, 558 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (remanding for entry of written order specifying conditions violated). Because we cannot ascertain from the face of the record what sentence the court would have handed down for this one violation, on remand the trial court must also determine whether the single violation merits the sentence imposed. JUDGMENT VACATED; CASE REMANDED. PALMER, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
