JONATHAN ANDREW BUCHANAN
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.
When an oral pronouncement of revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement controls and the trial court must enter a corrected written order consistent with the conditions actually determined to have been violated.
[1] When an oral pronouncement of probation revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement controls and the trial court must correct the written order to…
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“Where the oral pronouncement of revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement controls.”
Citation to Hart v. State, discussing the controlling effect of oral pronouncements in probation revocation proceedings.
Jonathan Andrew Buchanan appealed a judgment and sentence related to probation revocation. The trial court's written order stated that Appellant willf…
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 Appeal From Conviction And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLIS, J.
In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence, but remand for the trial court to correct the order revoking his probation. Specifically, although the trial court’s order states that Appellant willfully and substantially violated condition 10, the trial court's oral pronouncement was that a violation had not been proven. Consequently, we remand with instructions for the trial court to enter a corrected written order that comports with the conditions that were determined to have been violated. See Wasden v. State, 342 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022); Crichton v. State, 299 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); Hart v. State, 252 So. 3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (“Where the oral pronouncement of revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement controls.”).
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
LAMBERT, C.J. and EVANDER, J., concur.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
O'Malley v. State, 378 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…commit error by imposing the $100 statutory minimum costs under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2010) without a request from the state on the record . . . .” See also Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392, 393–94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023); Wasden v. State, 342 So. 3d 298, 299 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022); Henderson v. State, 192 So. 3d 638, 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016). We affirm as to the $100 cost of prosecution. We note, as the First District did in Parks, that the Second District has taken the opposite position on this ques…
-
Buchanan v. State, 342 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…onouncement was that a violation had not been proven. Consequently, we remand with instructions for the trial court to enter a corrected written order that comports with the conditions that were determined to have been violated. See Wasden v. State, 342 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022); Crichton v. State, 299 So. 3d 616 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020); Hart v. State, 252 So. 3d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (“Where the oral pronouncement of revocation conflicts with the written order, the oral pronouncement controls.”).…
-
Golphin v. State, 413 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Buchanan v. State, 342 So. 3d 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)
- Wasden v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)
- Hart v. State, 252 So. 3d 1285 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)