RONALD D. MENDENHALL
v.
STATE
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.
A trial court's failure to specify in its written probation revocation order which conditions were violated is not reviewable on appeal when the defendant did not object at trial or raise the issue in a Rule 3.800(b)(2) motion.
[1] A trial court's written order terminating probation is deficient if it fails to state the conditions of probation that the court orally found were violated.
[2] An error in a written probation revocation order, such as failing to specify the violated conditions, is not preserved for appellate review if the defendant does not obje…
Previewing 2 of 3 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 trial court's written order terminating Appellant's probation is deficient because it fails to state the conditions of probation that the trial court orally found that Appellant had violated”
Court acknowledging the structural deficiency in the trial court's revocation order
Mendenhall was tried for violation of probation. The trial court orally found probation violations and revoked probation, but the written order failed…
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 Motion To Correct Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED RONALD DAVID MENDENHALL, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D17-812 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ________________________________/ Opinion filed January 19, 2018 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, James H. Earp, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Robert E. Wildridge, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Andrea K. Totten, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
LAMBERT, J.
We affirm the judgment and sentence rendered by the trial court after Appellant’s violation of probation trial because we conclude that the arguments raised by Appellant in this appeal are without merit. We note that the trial court’s written order terminating
Appellant’s probation is deficient because it fails to state the conditions of probation that the trial court orally found that Appellant had violated. Long v. State, 886 So. 2d 280, 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). However, this error has not been preserved for appellate review because Appellant did not object at trial or raise this specific issue in the Florida Rule of
Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion that he filed in this case. See Jones v. State, 898
So. 2d 209, 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (finding that the trial court’s error in failing to specify in its written revocation order the conditions of probation that it orally found the defendant had violated was properly preserved for review by the defendant’s filing a motion to correct sentence pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2)). Lastly, we remind trial courts that the court minutes from trial, listing the conditions of probation orally found by the court to have been violated by a defendant, as was done here, is not a substitute for a proper revocation order because court minutes and the minute book entries are specifically excluded from the definition of a court order. See Fla R. App. P. 9.020(f).
Accordingly, the judgment and sentence are affirmed without prejudice to
Appellant filing a motion for postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED, without prejudice.
PALMER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jones v. State, 898 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Long v. State, 886 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)