Adrian Edward Demond Connor v. State of Florida
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledNovember 12, 2026
Docket4D2025-1704
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ADRIAN EDWARD DEMOND CONNOR,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D2025-1704
[November 12, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit,
Broward County; Edward H. Merrigan, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No.
062023CF005180A88810.
Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant
Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Zi Jin Peter Chan,
Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals from the reinstatement and modification of his
probation following the trial court’s finding that he had violated the terms
of his probation based on three grounds alleged in the second amended
affidavit of violation: Ground 2, violation of condition five by committing
the offense of trafficking in fentanyl on September 24, 2023; Ground 4,
violation of condition nine by failing to report to Appellant’s probation
officer on September 22, 2023; and Ground 5, violation of condition two
by failure to pay supervision costs as of June 19, 2024.
Appellant argues the State did not present sufficient evidence for
findings of violation as to Grounds 2 and 5. The State tacitly concedes as
much, arguing instead that Ground 4 is valid, and that the trial court
would have imposed the same sentence based on Ground 4 alone.
We have reviewed the record in this case and cannot determine that the
trial court would have revoked Appellant’s probation based solely on his
violation in Ground 4. Cf. Redd v. State, 204 So. 3d 558, 559 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2016) (“Only when this court cannot determine from the record
whether the trial court would have revoked the defendant’s probation
based solely on the proper grounds will this court reverse and remand for
reconsideration by the trial court.” (citations omitted)).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for reconsideration.
Reversed and remanded.
CIKLIN, KLINGENSMITH and LOTT, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.
2