WILLIAM G GREEN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
This is an appellate decision addressing a probation revocation where the trial court found violations but the revocation order contained inaccurate language suggesting the appellant admitted to all alleged violations rather than only those actually found. The court affirmed the revocation but remanded for the trial court to correct the order to accurately reflect which specific violations were admitted and formed the basis for revocation.
The court affirmed the probation revocation but remanded the case for the trial court to correct the revocation order to accurately specify which conditions the appellant violated and to conform the written order to the trial court's oral pronouncement regarding the basis for revocation.
[1] A probation revocation order must be corrected on remand to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement and accurately reflect only those specific conditions for whic…
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 intelligenceThe appellant was on probation and the State alleged violations of multiple conditions, including Condition 5, Special Conditions 3, 5, and 12, and Co…
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 Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Special Condition 5, 2, and Special condition 3.”2 Additionally, Appellant admitted violating only Condition 7 and Special Condition 5, but the revocation order states that he “[a]dmits violation,” thereby incorrectly suggesting that he admitted violation as to each condition. We, therefore, remand for the trial court to correct the revocation order. See Harris v. State, 229 So. 3d 444, 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (affirming a judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal, but remanding for the trial court to correct the revocation order to conform to its oral pronouncement as to which alleged violations supported revocation and to accurately reflect the offense for which the appellant was on probation); see also Williams v. State, 138 So. 3d 1102, 1103 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Nickolas v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Appellant need not be present. See Williams, 138 So. 3d at 1103.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
LEWIS, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ 2 Initially, the State alleged two violations of Condition 5, violations of Special Conditions 3, 5, and 12, and violations of Conditions 2 and 7. At the violation of probation hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motions to dismiss one of the alleged violations of Condition 5, the alleged violation of Condition 2, and the alleged violations of Special Conditions 3 and 12. With regard to the remaining alleged violation of Condition 5, committing the new law offense of aggravated battery, the State argued for a finding of the lesser-included offense of battery.
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benson v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
-
Elroy Jones v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2020)
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Dawson v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Nickolas v. State, 66 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Williams v. State, 138 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Trey Harris v. State, 229 So. 3d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)