WILMORE v. STATE (2024)

Kendell Amos Wilmore appeals the trial court's order revoking his sex offender probation after finding him in violation of Special Condition 18 and Standard Condition 19. On appeal, Wilmore argues, inter alia, that the State failed to present competent, substantial evidence of either violation. We affirm the trial court's finding that Appellant violated Special Condition 18, mandating electronic monitoring, without further discussion.

However, we agree that there is no competent, substantial evidence in our record to support the trial court's finding that Wilmore violated Standard Condition 19, which prohibits contact with a minor. As such, the trial court's finding that Wilmore violated Condition 19 is in error. See Stringfield v. State, 254 So. 3d 1127, 1127–28 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (“A lower court's finding of a willful and substantial violation of probation must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.” (citation omitted)).

Based on our record, including the trial court's focus on the violation of Standard Condition 19, we cannot determine whether the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence based solely on the violation of Special Condition 18. We therefore reverse the order and remand for reconsideration. See Niemi v. State, 284 So. 3d 1143, 1145–46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).

We otherwise affirm.

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

Per Curiam.

Wallis, Lambert, and Eisnaugle, JJ., concur.