LARRY JAMES TAYLOR
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.
The trial court's revocation of community control was supported by competent substantial evidence, but the written order must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing.
[1] When a trial court's written order does not conform to its oral pronouncement at a hearing, the appellate court must remand for the trial court to correct the written ord…
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“On remand, the trial court shall strike that portion of the order finding Appellant violated condition 5 of his community control and also strike the language that he admitted to doing so.”
Court's directive regarding the corrected order to be entered on remand.
Taylor was on community control with various conditions. The trial court revoked his community control based on alleged violations of condition 5, and…
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D18-2827 _____________________________
LARRY JAMES TAYLOR,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County. Michael A. Flowers, Judge.
December 31, 2019
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we issued a Causey∗ order directing counsel to file supplemental briefs addressing whether competent substantial evidence supported the trial court’s revocation of Appellant’s community control based, in part, on alleged violations of condition 5 of Appellant’s community control, and whether Appellant admitted to those violation charges as represented in the Order of Revocation of Community Control. After considering the courtordered briefing on the issues, we affirm the trial court’s Order of Revocation of Community Control and the judgment and sentence
∗ State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987).
2
for domestic violence by strangulation. However, we agree with Appellant, and Appellee concedes, that we must remand for the trial court to conform the written order to its oral pronouncement at the hearing that Appellant violated only condition 16 of his community control—failure to remain confined to his approved residence. On remand, the trial court shall strike that portion of the order finding Appellant violated condition 5 of his community control and also strike the language that he admitted to doing so. See Enno v. State, 59 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Stokes v. State, 1 So. 3d 1141, 1142 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Because the entry of the corrected order is merely a ministerial act, Appellant need not be present. Stokes, 1 So. 3d at 1142. AFFIRMED and REMANDED for entry of a corrected order. RAY, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, 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 Kasey Lacey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Causey, 503 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1987)
- Enno v. State, 59 So. 3d 149 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Stokes v. State, 1 So. 3d 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)