ERVIN ROBINSON, 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 affirmed the trial court's finding that Robinson violated probation and the sentence imposed, but remanded to require the revocation order to specify which probation condition was violated, conforming to the trial court's oral pronouncements.
A probation revocation order must specify which condition of probation was violated and conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements.
[1] A probation revocation order must specify the particular condition violated and conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements to be valid.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“a trial court's order revoking supervision must conform to its oral pronouncements”
Court cited Maddox v. State for the principle that revocation orders must conform to oral pronouncements.
Robinson was charged with violating nine probation conditions, but at the hearing the state presented evidence only regarding his failure to remain at…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant violated probation and the judgment and sentence imposed thereafter, but the cause is remanded with directions to enter a corrected order revoking probation which conforms to the court’s oral pronouncements. See Maddox v. State, 619 So. 2d 473, 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (holding that a trial court’s order revoking supervision must conform to its oral pronouncements).
The amended affidavit of violation of probation charged that appellant violated nine conditions of probation. At the violation of probation hearing, the state presented evidence concerning only one violation of probation: appellant’s failure to live and remain at liberty without violating any law as evidenced by his arrest for habitual driving while license suspended or revoked (condition 5). At the revocation hearing, the trial court found that appellant willfully' and substantially violated condition 5 of his probation; however, the order revoking probation stated that the trial court “found [appellant] in willful violation of his probation,” but did not state which specific condition of probation had been violated. Accordingly, the revocation of appellant’s probation is affirmed, but the cause is remanded with directions to enter a corrected order conforming to the trial court’s oral pronouncements that appellant violated condition 5 of the order of probation.
AFFIRMED, but REMANDED with directions to enter corrected order. BARFIELD, DAVIS, and LEWIS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford v. State, 13 So. 3d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation but remand with directions to the trial court to enter an amended order listing the conditions of probation that appellant violated. See Robinson v. State, 963 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). We affirm appellant’s sentence. BARFIELD, WEBSTER, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
-
Trafton George Kerridge v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)…ror, 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…
Authorities Cited
- Maddox v. State, 619 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- William Earl Banks v. Saltmarsh, Cleaveland & Gund, P.A., 619 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)