GIVENS
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.
The appellate court affirmed the revocation of probation but remanded the case for the trial court to enter a written order that accurately reflects its oral pronouncement regarding the specific probation violation found.
Yes, the lower tribunal erred by including the retail theft violation in the written order when it was not orally pronounced as a violation.
[1] A written order revoking probation must conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement of the specific probation conditions violated, and if discrepancies exist, the cas…
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“The revocation order found that the Appellant had violated condition (5) of his probation by committing the offenses of resisting an officer with violence and retail theft.”
Describes the written finding of probation violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was found to have violated condition (5) of his probation. The revocation order stated he violated this condition by committing both res…
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 Retail Theft cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D18-2917 _____________________________
EDGAR JEROME GIVENS,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bay County. Michael C. Overstreet, Judge.
February 4, 2019 PER CURIAM.
We affirm this appeal in all regards, but remand for entry of a conformed order of revocation of probation. The revocation order found that the Appellant had violated condition (5) of his probation by committing the offenses of resisting an officer with violence and retail theft. This was in error as the lower tribunal only orally found a violation of condition (5) for resisting an officer with violence. Accordingly, this case is remanded for entry of a written order that conforms to the oral pronouncement of the lower tribunal. See Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); see also Baldwin v. State, 855 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).
AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED in part for entry of a conformed order.
2
B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and ROBERTS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
Andy Thomas, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hallman v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
-
Hallman v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
-
Hallman v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)
Authorities Cited
- Cleveland Baldwin v. State, 855 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Lakeisha Shayolanda Leggs v. State, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- State v. Hudson, 27 So. 3d 155 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)