ROY SPARKMAN, 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.
Roy Sparkman appeals his probation revocation and resulting prison sentences. The appellate court affirmed the probation revocation with modifications, remanding to the trial court to correct clerical errors in the written orders to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement.
The appellate court affirmed the probation revocation based on substantial competent evidence supporting the two violations found proved, but remanded for the trial court to correct clerical errors in the written orders to conform them to the oral pronouncement, as the written orders erroneously listed all violation charges as proved and contained an error regarding consecutive versus concurrent sentencing.
[1] A trial court's written orders must conform to its oral pronouncements regarding probation revocation and sentencing.
[2] Substantial competent evidence is sufficient to support a finding of probation violation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Since substantial competent evidence exists to support the trial court's findings that Sparkman failed to make restitution payments, consumed alcohol on a beach in violation of a city ordinance, and committed a battery, we affirm the order revoking defendant's probation as modified.”
Establishes the court's holding that the probation revocation was supported by substantial competent evidence and therefore affirmed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSparkman was originally convicted of three counts of burglary of a conveyance, two counts of grand theft, and one count of petit theft, for which he r…
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 Restitution Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Judge.
Appellant, Roy Sparkman, challenges a judgment and sentence finding him guilty of violating his probation. We affirm.
Appellant was originally charged with three counts of burglary of a conveyance, two counts of grand theft, and one count of petit theft. He pled nolo contendere to all charges. On October 27, 1982, the trial court adjudged him guilty on all counts and placed him on probation for three years. On the basis of an affidavit of his probation officer, warrants were issued charging Sparkman with ten violations of six conditions of his probation. On May 26, 1983, the trial court found Sparkman guilty of violating condition nine by failing to make restitution payments; and condition five by consuming alcohol on a beach in violation of a city ordinance and committing a battery. After revoking Sparkman’s probation, the court sentenced him to five years in prison on each count of burglary of a conveyance to be served consecutively and five years in prison on each count of grand theft to be served concurrently with two of the burglary counts. The court dismissed the petit theft charge.
Contrary to its oral pronouncement, the court’s written order revoking probation listed all probation violation charges as proved. In addition, this order, as well as the written judgment and sentence, erroneously provided that one of the concurrent sentences for grand theft was to be served consecutively to the sentence on one of the burglary counts. The trial court’s written orders of probation revocation and judgment and sentence must be corrected to conform to its oral pronouncement. Jackson v. State, 445 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Langston v. State, 371 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Since substantial competent evidence exists to support the trial court’s findings that Sparkman failed to make restitution payments, consumed alcohol on a beach in violation of a city ordinance, and committed a battery, we affirm the order revoking defendant’s probation as modified.
We find no merit in Sparkman’s other contentions.
Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court to conform the written order revoking probation and the judgment and sentence to the oral pronouncement of the court. We affirm the judgment and sentence in all other respects.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Koile v. State, 902 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)…State, and the amount must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2001); Santana v. State, 795 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Restitution must be proved by substantial competent evidence. See Sparkman v. State, 445 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). III. Restitution generally. The State asserts that based on its reading of the restitution statute, the awards were lawful. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (2003), the statute governing restitution as a condition of probation…
-
Butler v. State, 450 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)…uncement finding appellant guilty of violating his probation by obstructing justice by giving false information. Thus, on remand, the trial court is also directed to correct the written order to conform to this oral pronouncement. Sparkman v. State, 445 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Accordingly, we remand the cause to the trial court to correct the written order of probation revocation consistent with this opinion. We affirm the judgment and sentence in all other respects. AFFIRMED and REMANDED. OTT, C.J.…
-
Tuttle v. State, 462 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ne, Circuit Court Case No. 83-5874, incorrectly adjudicated defendant guilty under section 893.13(l)(a)2 instead of section 893.-13(l)(a)l. We remand these eases with directions that both written judgments should be corrected. See Sparkman v. State, 445 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Jackson v. State, 445 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). SCHEB, A.C.J., CAMPBELL, J., and MALONEY, DENNIS P„ Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jackson v. State, 445 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Langston v. State, 371 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)