TRAFTON GEORGE KERRIDGE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Trafton George Kerridge appealed the trial court's revocation of his probation through an Anders appeal. The appellate court found no reversible error in the revocation and sentences but remanded solely to correct a scrivener's error omitting one of three orally-pronounced violations from the written Order of Revocation.
The trial court properly revoked probation and imposed sentences without reversible error. However, the written Order of Revocation must be corrected to include the orally-pronounced violation of Special Condition 5 regarding alcohol consumption, as the oral pronouncement controls and the written order must conform to it.
[1] An appellate court must examine the record to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record when reviewing an Anders appeal.
[2] An oral pronouncement of a court controls over a written order when there is a discrepancy.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record”
Standard for Anders review of the trial court's probation revocation decision
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKerridge's probation was revoked following a hearing where the trial court orally pronounced three violations of his probation conditions. One of thes…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Anders Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we are required to “examine the record to the extent necessary to discover any errors apparent on the face of the record.” State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 1987). We find no reversible error, and affirm the trial court’s revocation of probation and subsequent sentences. We remand solely for correction of a scrivener’s error in the Order of Revocation, which fails to comport with the court’s oral pronouncement. See Robinson v. State, 963 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (affirming, but remanding for court to conform written revocation order to oral pronouncement); Thompson v. State, 965 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (explaining oral
pronouncement controls). The court orally pronounced three violations, including a violation of Special Condition 5 (refrain from consuming alcohol), but the Order of Revocation failed to list that violation. On remand, the court shall enter a corrected Order of Revocation that includes the violation of this condition. Appellant need not be present. See Butler v. State, 450 So. 2d 1283, 1284-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (affirming and remanding, in Anders VOP appeal, to add orally pronounced violation not included in written order). AFFIRMED, but REMANDED with instructions. ROWE, MAKAR, and KELSEY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987)
- Butler v. State, 450 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Ervin Robinson v. State, 963 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)