DUSTIN D. BADGER
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 court affirmed the revocation of Badger's supervision and sentence but remanded for entry of a written order conforming to the trial court's oral pronouncement.
When a conflict exists between an oral revocation pronouncement and the written order revoking probation, the oral pronouncement controls.
[1] When a conflict exists between an oral revocation pronouncement and the written order revoking probation, the oral pronouncement controls.
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“When a conflict exists between an oral revocation pronouncement and the written order revoking probation, the oral pronouncement will control.”
Citing Thompson v. State, 965 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), establishing the controlling principle for resolving conflicts between oral and written revocation orders.
Dustin D. Badger appealed the revocation of his supervision and the resulting sentence imposed by the trial court.…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the revocation of Appellant’s supervision and resulting sentence, but remand the case for entry of a written order that conforms with the trial court’s oral pronouncement. See Thompson v. State, 965 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“When a conflict exists between an oral revocation pronouncement and the written order revoking probation, the oral pronouncement will control.”); see also Wells v. State, 60 So. 3d 551, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (finding that “‘[a] trial court is not permitted to revoke probation on conduct not charged in the affidavit.’”) (quoting Perkins v. State, 842 So. 2d 275, 277 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)). AFFIRMED in part; REMANDED with directions to resolve conflict between written order and oral pronouncement.
MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and BILBREY, 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 Moody, Attorney General, and Tabitha Herrera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Perkins v. State, 842 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Aaron v. Thompson, 965 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Wells v. State, 60 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)