FREEMAN A. SINGLETON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that while the revocation of probation was supported by sufficient evidence, the trial court erred by failing to enter a written order of revocation and by imposing a sentence not in accordance with a prior 'true split sentence'.
The appellant's probation was revoked based on evidence of a new conviction. The trial court failed to enter a written order of revocation and imposed…
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 Written Order Of Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
In this appeal from a conviction and sentence upon a revocation of probation, the appellant claims the trial court committed error in (1) revoking his probation upon the evidence presented; (2) sentencing him for the crime underlying the probation which had formed part of a “true split sentence” previously; and (3) failing to enter a written order revoking his probation. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Upon review of the record, including the transcript of the revocation hearing, we conclude there was sufficient evidence of the appellant’s conviction and sentence for a crime committed while serving his probationary term. Therefore, we affirm the revocation of probation. However, after finding that the appellant had violated his probation, the trial court sentenced him without filing a written order of revocation setting forth the conditions violated. This was clearly error and the state properly concedes this issue. Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990).
The state also candidly concedes error in the sentence imposed because it was not imposed in accord with the mandate of Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1988). Because a true split sentence was initially imposed, upon revocation the trial court was limited in sentencing the appellant to incarceration up to the balance of the term previously suspended.
In sum, we affirm the revocation of probation and the conviction imposed thereon. We reverse the sentence and remand for entry of a written order of revocation and for resentencing in accord with Poore.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beltran v. State, 854 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…fender, violated his probation, the trial court could not order new incarceration that exceeded the remaining balance of the suspended portion of the original sentence); see also Lawton v. State, 731 So. 2d 60 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Singleton v. State, 633 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); cf. Crews v. State, 779 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Here, the trial court could not sentence Beltran to a term greater than the seventy-two month term that was originally suspended. Accordingly, we reverse Beltran’s sentence…
-
Pisces Antwain Smith v. State, 940 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…es not comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement, which did include specific findings as to specific conditions. Moreover, the written order is facially deficient because it does not set forth the conditions violated. See Singleton v. State, 633 So. 2d 529, 530 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (noting that the written order of revocation must set forth the conditions violated). Therefore, we remand for the trial court to enter a corrected written order of revocation that specifies the conditions violated as found a…
-
Moye v. State, 658 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…was a “true split sentence,” upon revocation the [*651] trial court is limited in sentencing appellant to a term of incarceration that does not exceed the balance of the term suspended. Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d. 161 (Fla.1988); Singleton v. State, 633 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation, but reverse the sentence and remand for correction of his sentence to a period of incarceration not to exceed fifteen years. Reversed and remanded. BLUE and LAZZ…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Poore v. State, 531 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1988)
- Donley v. State, 557 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)