DOUGLAS BRISCO, 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 revocation of appellant's probation is affirmed, but the order must be corrected to specify violated conditions and justify retained jurisdiction.
Appellant's probation was revoked, and the trial court retained jurisdiction over a portion of the sentence. The written order failed to specify which…
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 Retention Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon the review of the briefs and record on appeal, we find that the appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the revocation of appellant’s probation is affirmed. However, the order revoking appellant’s probation did not recite which condition or conditions of the appellant’s probation were violated. This should have been done. Sing Eng v. State, 350 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Dunlap v. State, 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Additionally, in adjudicating the appellant guilty the trial court retained jur isdiction over one-third of the appellant’s sentence. Section 947.16(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1981), requires that a trial court must state the reasons for retaining jurisdiction over an individual and make the justification part of the court record. A trial judge must state with particularity the justification for retention of jurisdiction before such a retention can be made. Sanders v. State, 400 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The trial court failed to make findings of facts supporting retention of jurisdiction a part of the record.
Accordingly, we remand for correction of the written order to include those specific conditions which were found to have been violated by the trial court. Furthermore, this case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to either relinquish the retention of jurisdiction over the one-third of the appellant’s sentence or to make findings of fact and justification, with individual particularity, to justify the retention of jurisdiction.
OTT, C. J., and HOBSON and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lang v. State, 616 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…ion and a remand of the case to the trial court to give it an opportunity to justify its retention of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Young v. State, 406 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Mathis v. State, 417 So. 2d 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Brisco v. State, 417 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Rosa v. State, 412 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sanders v. State, 400 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Because the trial court modified the retention portion of the sentence within 60 days after the sentence had been entered, a…
Authorities Cited
- ENG v. State, 350 So. 2d 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Sanders v. State, 400 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Dunlap v. State, 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Wimes v. ST. Lucie Cnty., 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)