ORION HUNTER MANIS, 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.
Orion Manis appeals his probation revocation after the trial court found him guilty of violating two probation conditions. Although sufficient evidence supported both violations, the appellate court vacates and remands because the trial court failed to issue a written probation violation order specifying which conditions were violated, and made an ambiguous statement suggesting revocation based on uncharged conduct.
The trial court's failure to issue a written VOP order specifying the conditions violated and its ambiguous statement suggesting revocation based on uncharged conduct (home invasion armed robbery) violates due process and requires reversal and remand for entry of a proper written VOP order.
[1] A trial court must specify in a written order or judgment which conditions of probation a defendant violated.
[2] Revoking probation based on conduct not charged in the affidavit of violation violates due process.
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“A trial court's decision to revoke a defendant's probation based on conduct not charged in the VOP affidavit violates due process and constitutes fundamental error.”
Establishes the fundamental due process principle that probation can only be revoked based on violations charged in the affidavit.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceManis was charged with two probation violations: (1) violating condition 5 by filing a false police report, and (2) violating condition 7 by using Per…
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 Uncharged Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
Orion Manis (defendant) appeals his judgments and sentences which were entered by the trial court after the court found him guilty of violating the terms of his probation. Although there was sufficient evidence presented by the State to support both claimed violations, we remand for the entry of a proper violation of probation (VOP) order.
The defendant was charged with violating two terms of his probation. Specifically, the defendant was charged with violating condition 5 by committing the new criminal offense of filing a false police report, and violating condition 7 by using the *587prescription medication Percocet without having a legal prescription. The matter proceeded to a VOP hearing during which the State presented ample evidence establishing both charges.
The trial court did not issue a written VOP or revocation order in this case. Rather, the court made verbal statements at the close of the VOP hearing. As to condition 7, the trial court made an express finding that the defendant violated that condition by using the prescription medicine Percocet without having a legal prescription. However, as to condition 5, the trial court verbally indicated that defendant violated condition 5, but did not make an express finding that the defendant had filed a false police report. Instead, the court made the following ambiguous statement:
You violated your probation in a substantial way and I’m sentencing you to— fifteen years in the Department of Corrections on Count I for the reasons I set forth in the record because there’s a substantial likelihood he was involved in a home invasion armed.
A trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s probation based on conduct not charged in the VOP affidavit violates due process and constitutes fundamental error. Wyns v. State, 679 So.2d 882 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). In Cherington v. State, 24 So.3d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), the Second District explained:
“[A] trial court is not permitted to revoke probation on conduct not charged in the affidavit of violation.” Parminter v. State, 762 So.2d 966, 967 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Butler v. State, 450 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Perkins v. State, 842 So.2d 275, 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). To revoke probation based on conduct not charged in the affidavit constitutes a deprivation of the defendant’s right to due process of law. See Perkins, 842 So.2d at 277. A revocation based on uncharged conduct generally requires reversal.
Here, the trial court’s verbal ruling is ambiguous and there is no written VOP order. This court has consistently held that a “trial judge must specify in the written order or judgment what conditions the defendant violated.” Mormon v. State, 976 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). Accord Kadyebo v. State, 15 So.3d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Young v. State, 4 So.3d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). Accordingly, we vacate the defendant’s judgments and sentences, and remand this matter to the trial court for the entry of a proper VOP order setting forth the specific violations of probation.
VACATED and REMANDED.
GRIFFIN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bell v. State, 179 So. 3d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…64695 (Fla. 1st DCA July 21, 2015). We reverse the trial court’s finding that Bell violated - his probation by associating with persons engaged in criminal activity because this ground was not alleged in the violation affidavit. See Manis v. State, 30 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). Because it is clear from this record that the trial court would have revoked Bell’s probation and imposed the same sentence based solely upon Bell’s possession of illicit drugs, no further proceedings are re; quired. See, e.g.,…
-
Hodges v. State, 262 So. 3d 842 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…t’s oral findings and the lack of any written findings, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court make an express determination whether Appellant’s probation should be revoked based on the new law violations. See Manis v. State, 30 So. 3d 586 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). III. The trial court’s written order of revocation does not specify the conditions of probation that were violated by Appellant. “If a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, the court is required to render a written…
-
T.M.F. v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…State, 777 So. 2d 1175, 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (holding the written probation revocation order "must conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement" (citing Robinson v. State, 763 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999))); see also Manis v. State, 30 So. 3d 586, 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (finding that the trial court in a VOP case "must specify in the written order or judgment what conditions the defendant violated" (quoting Mormon v. State, 976 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008))); accord Kadyebo v. Stat…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gillis Watson v. State, 842 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Perkins v. State, 842 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Parminter v. State, 762 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Cherington v. State, 24 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Butler v. State, 450 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Latonya Young v. State, 4 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)
- Mormon v. State, 976 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)
- Brady Johnson v. State, 679 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Kadyebo v. State, 15 So. 3d 928 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)