FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF
from the Circuit Court for Polk County; Glenn T. Shelby,
L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen,
Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy
Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
LaROSE, CHIEF JUDGE.
Glen Pinnock appeals the revocation of his probation and
resulting sentences. We have jurisdiction. See Fla.
R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). As explained below, we affirm the
revocation of his probation and his sentences; however, we
remand for the trial court to enter a corrected revocation
Pinnock was serving five years' probation for use of a
computer to seduce a minor, see § 847.0135(3),
Fla. Stat. (2006), and attempted lewd or lascivious battery
on a child, see §§ 777.04(1),
800.04(4)(a), Fla. Stat. (2006). As a term of his probation,
the trial court ordered that Mr. Pinnock could not have
access to the internet without a treatment safety plan in
place. Mr. Pinnock's probation officer instructed him
that he could not possess a phone that could access the
Pinnock lived in sex offender housing where he was subject to
annual searches. During one of those routine searches in
January 2016, the probation officer learned that Mr. Pinnock
owned a Samsung Galaxy S5 phone that contained applications
for prohibited websites.
State alleged that Mr. Pinnock willfully and substantially
violated conditions 7 and 55 of his probation. Condition 7
required that Mr. Pinnock comply with all instructions from
his probation officer. Condition 55 prohibited Mr. Pinnock
from accessing the internet without a safety plan. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the trial court revoked Mr.
Pinnock's probation and sentenced him to sixty-nine
months in prison. Unfortunately, in announcing its ruling,
the trial court did not specify which conditions of probation
Mr. Pinnock violated. Approximately three months later, the
trial court entered a written revocation order finding Mr.
Pinnock in violation of conditions 7 and 55.
standard of review involves a two-step process. Savage v.
State, 120 So.3d 619, 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). "[W]e
first assess whether the finding of a willful and substantial
violation is supported by competent substantial
evidence." Id. Then, we review the trial
court's decision to revoke probation under an abuse of
discretion standard. Id. at 623. "This standard
of review rarely results in relief because it requires
affirmance of the trial court order unless no reasonable
judge could have reached the decision challenged on
appeal." Clark v. State, 95 So.3d 986, 987
(Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (citing Canakaris v. Canakaris,
382 So.2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980)).
Pinnock first argues that the State did not prove by the
greater weight of the evidence that he accessed the internet
on his phone. Thus, he disavows violating condition 55. The
State presented no evidence to support its ...