DONALD TOWSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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 held that while the revocation order contained a typographical error, the revocation itself was proper and the sentence affirmed.
Appellant's probation was revoked, but the written order incorrectly stated a violation of a condition that the State had withdrawn.…
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
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a revocation of probation entered by the Circuit Court of Orange County, Florida. The Public Defender has filed an Anders
motion and brief, requesting leave to withdraw as counsel for the appellant and representing to this court that no reversible error appears. On January 21, 1980, this court gave the appellant thirty (30) days within which to file a brief on his own behalf. No such brief has been filed. The court has reviewed counsel’s brief and the record herein and no reversible error appears. The motion of the Public Defender to withdraw is hereby granted.
Although no reversible error was committed, there is an error in the written order of revocation. The order of revocation recites a finding of violation of condition (H), requiring the appellant to live at liberty without violating any law. At the revocation proceedings, the State withdrew the charge concerning the violation of this condition. Fundamental due process requires that revocation of probation be based only on the violation alleged. Frederick v. State, 339 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The trial court did not find a violation of condition (H), but added that finding in its written order, which written order must conform to the court’s oral announcement. Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). The written finding was obviously a typographical error. The judgment is hereby amended to delete the finding of guilt as to a violation of condition (H) and is otherwise affirmed. The sentence is also affirmed.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
UPCHURCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct.1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…000. When reduced to a writing the order recited jail time of forty-eight hours as well as the $2,000 fine. The written order must be corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement. Byrd v. State, 388 So. 2d 1362 (Fla.5th DCA 1980); Towson v. State, 382 So. 2d 870 (Fla.5th DCA 1980); Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Chester v. State, 355 So. 2d 509 (Fla.2d DCA 1978); Sing Eng v. State, 350 So. 2d 559 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). REMANDED for correction of the sentence; otherwise AFFIRMED. DOWNEY,…
-
State ex rel. Joseph T. Garlovsky v. The Honorable E. L. Eastmoore, 393 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ber 12, the trial judge reduced the contempt judgment and sentence to writing in conformity with the oral pronouncement. See Sandstrom v. State, 390 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Byrd v. State, 388 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Towson v. State, 382 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The written order reads: JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE You, JOSEPH T. GARLOVSKY, for your wilful contempt in the courtroom in the course of a trial proceeding wherein you were representing one, MARIAN McCRAE, Case No. 79-328-CF, a pro…
-
Morganti v. State, 498 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…he order by striking the violations for failure to pay costs of supervision, failure to submit to evaluation for counseling and for failure to pay the public defender’s fee. See Robinson v. State, 468 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Towson v. State, 382 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). When the trial court sentenced appellant as an habitual offender, a conflict existed among the district courts of appeal concerning the relationship between the sentencing guidelines and the habitual offender statute.1 The supr…
Previewing 3 of 8 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)
- Sterling Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Frederick v. State, 339 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)