Background
Kevin Pratt appealed from a judgment and sentence entered after the trial court found that he had willfully and substantially violated his probation. The violation was based on Pratt changing his residence without obtaining prior approval.
The trial court also determined that Pratt posed a danger to the community. Its written danger order, however, did not include factual findings connecting that determination to the applicable statutory factors, and the written revocation order did not identify the probation condition that Pratt violated.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District affirmed the finding that Pratt willfully and substantially violated probation by changing his residence without prior approval. It concluded that the record supported both the violation finding and the trial court’s determination that Pratt posed a danger to the community.
The court also affirmed the resulting judgment and sentence. But it remanded with instructions for the trial court to enter a written danger order containing factual findings tied to the applicable statutory factors and a corrected written revocation order identifying the probation condition that Pratt violated.
Key Takeaways
- Changing residence without prior approval supported the trial court’s finding of a willful and substantial probation violation.
- The record supported the determination that Pratt posed a danger to the community.
- A written danger order must connect its factual findings to the applicable statutory factors, and a written revocation order must identify the condition violated.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes between evidentiary support for probation revocation and dangerousness findings, which the appellate court upheld, and deficiencies in the written orders documenting those rulings. Even when the judgment and sentence are affirmed, remand may be required to ensure that the written orders contain the findings and information required by law.