SANDRILLA HAYES, 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 written revocation order contained an error, the conviction and sentence should be affirmed because the probationer would have been found in violation regardless of the erroneous findings.
Sandrilla Hayes appealed her conviction and sentence for violating probation, arguing insufficient evidence for revocation and an error in the written…
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 Sentencing Error cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sandrilla Hayes appeals her conviction and sentence imposed after she violated her probation. She received a sentence of sixty months for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon. She claims two errors. She first argues that the trial court erred in revoking her probation because there was insufficient evidence that she willfully and substantially violated numerous conditions of the probation. We find no merit in this argument and affirm the conviction and sentence without further discussion.
Second, she contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant her motion to correct sentencing error filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). She had filed this motion during the pendency of this appeal claiming that the written revocation order does not comport with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Williams v. State, 764 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The trial court had announced at the revocation hearing that it found that she had violated four different conditions, but the written order indicates that the court found she had violated an additional two conditions. The State concedes the error but claims, and we agree, that the trial court would have revoked her probation even without including the evidence related to these two additional conditions.
We, therefore, affirm the conviction and sentence but remand for entry of a corrected revocation order. Ms. Hayes need not be present on remand when the amended revocation order is entered.
CASANUEVA, KELLY, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Campbell v. State, 972 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (finding that a trial court’s order reflecting different findings than the oral pronouncement could be a harmless clerical error when other conditions were sufficient basis for violation); see also Hayes v. State, 927 So. 2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA) (affirming the conviction and sentence but remanding for entry of a corrected revocation order; noting that defendant need not be present on remand when the amended revocation order is entered), review dismissed, 936 So. 2d 565 (Fl…
-
Richards v. State, 992 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)…lant need not be present when the order is entered. See, e.g., Campbell v. State, 972 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (affirming order revoking probation but remanding for court to correct order to show correct ground for revocation); Hayes v. State, 927 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (affirming conviction and sentence but remanding for corrected revocation order; noting defendant’s presence not necessary when amended revocation order entered on remand); Turner v. State, 873 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (affir…
Authorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 764 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)