PISCES ANTWAIN SMITH, 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.
Pisces Smith appealed the revocation of his probation following an evidentiary hearing. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation but remanded for the trial court to enter a corrected written order that specifically states the conditions violated, as the original written order failed to comport with the trial court's detailed oral findings.
The revocation of probation was proper and affirmed. However, the written order of revocation was deficient because it failed to specify which conditions were violated, contrary to the trial court's detailed oral findings and required by law.
[1] A written order revoking probation must specify the conditions violated as found by the court.
[2] A trial court's oral pronouncement of findings at a probation revocation hearing must be reflected in the written order.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the written order does not comport with the trial court's oral pronouncement, which did include specific findings as to specific conditions”
Establishes the central deficiency: the written order contradicted the trial court's oral findings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSmith's probation was subject to multiple conditions. An affidavit alleged violations of conditions (5), (3), and (9), citing six new law offenses inc…
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 Probation Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Pisces Smith appeals the revocation of his probation following an evidentiary hearing. We affirm the revocation of Smith’s probation but remand to the trial court for entry of a corrected written order of revocation.
The affidavit of violation of probation that was at issue during the revocation hearing alleged that Smith had violated condition (5) of his probation by committing six new law offenses, namely trafficking in cocaine, conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, escape, driving while license suspended or revoked, obstructing an officer with violence, and giving a false name to a police officer. The affidavit also alleged that Smith violated condition (3) by moving from his approved residence and condition (9) by failing to comply with the instructions of his probation officer. At the start of the revocation hearing, the State indicated that it was not going to seek to revoke Smith’s probation based on the trafficking and conspiracy offenses but that it would go forward with evidence on the remaining allegations.
At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court stated on the record that it was finding that Smith violated condition (5) of his probation by committing an escape, by giving a false name to a police officer, and by driving while his license was suspended. The trial court also found that Smith had violated condition (9). However, the trial court refused to find that Smith had violated condition (5) by obstructing an officer with violence or to find that Smith had violated condition (3).
Despite these specific oral findings, the written order revoking Smith’s probation states that the conditions violated were “not stated.” Clearly, the written order does 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 at the hearing.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
FULMER, C.J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., JR., Senior Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Butler v. State, 195 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…2011CF-009406 and 2012CF-003342, and we remand for entry of an order of revocation that comports with the trial court’s oral pronouncements and sets forth the condition(s) of probation Mr. Butler was determined to have violated. See Smith v. State, 940 So. 2d 530, 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Cato v. State, 845 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). The judgment and sentences imposed in case number 2014-CF-003581 are affirmed. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. VILLANTI, C.J., and…
Authorities Cited
- Freeman A. Singleton v. State, 633 So. 2d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)