ALVIN VIANI FREEMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 6th DCA | 2025-08-08
No. 2024-1454
Sloan, J., Stargel, J., Nardella, J., Brownlee, J.
2025 FL 6874 Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District (2025)

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.


Holding

The trial court properly denied Freeman's motion to suppress and revoked his probation without error.


Headnotes

[1] A claim of scrivener's error in a probation revocation order that is not preserved for appellate review and does not constitute fundamental error will not be addressed on…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Freeman was on probation and appealed the trial court's revocation of that probation. He challenged both the denial of his motion to suppress and clai…

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.


Opinion of the Court
Brownlee

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-1454 Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CF-1 _____________________________

ALVIN VIANI FREEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hendry County. James D. Sloan, Judge.

August 8, 2025

PER CURIAM.

Alvin Freeman appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation and challenges the denial of his motion to suppress. Freeman also raises what he deems to be a scrivener’s error in the probation revocation order. We find no error in the denial of Freeman’s motion to suppress and therefore affirm. We decline to reach the merits of Freeman’s additional claim that the revocation order contains a scrivener’s error because that claim is not preserved for our review and does not constitute fundamental error. See Thomas v. State, 725 So. 2d 1148, 1149 (Fla. 2d

2

DCA 1998) (citing § 924.051, Fla. Stat. (1996)), approved, 763 So. 2d 316 (Fla. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

STARGEL, NARDELLA and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Robert D. Rosen, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William A. Leto, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw