we agree with both the State and the dissent below that remaining in one’s residence during the specified times is indeed a vital component of a community control program. However, our inquiry must not end there. The State urges that we consider Allen v. State, 666 So.2d 259, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), where the district court determined that failure to remain confined within the approved residence did not constitute a technical violation of community-control, but that it amounted to willful and substantial violation of community control. See also Lopez v. State, 722 So.2d 936, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)( “Absence from the home without permission supports a finding of a willful and substantial violation of community control.”); Davis v. State, 704 So.2d 681, 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)(<HOLDING>). In that case, Allen failed to remain in his
holding that defendant who failed to remain confined in his approved residence during the specified hours had committed a willful and substantial violation of community control holding that home was community property where predecessor residence was initially purchased with separate funds but proceeds from sale of predecessor residence were commingled with community property upon sale and applied to succeeding residences noting there was no evidence of how value should have been apportioned between community and separate property each time the parties sold a residence during the period of the marriage holding that the state failed to rebut the defendants testimony that he was forced to leave his approved residence and could not reach the probation officer to inform him of his move holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence holding testimony that defendant had no response to question during police interview was not impermissible comment on his constitutional right to remain silent where defendant had voluntarily waived his miranda rights