RICHARD S. FEEZEL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1245] OTT, Judge.
Defendant Feezel appeals his order modifying his probation by continuing his probationary term for five years with the added condition of a six-month jail term. The affidavit for violation of probation alleged that defendant 1) had not filed his monthly reports for three months, 2) had not paid supervision costs, 3) had not reported to his probation officer upon request, and 4) had not made restitution.
At the hearing, the trial court made an oral declaration that defendant had violated grounds one, two, and three of the four conditions, all amply supported by the record. We find no reversible error in the trial court’s finding. However, the written order of modification failed to make or recite any violations. The order of modification must be corrected to reflect the specific conditions which were violated and thus conform to the trial court’s oral declaration. See Brown v. State, 429 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dunlap v. State, 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
We affirm the modification of probation, but remand the case for entry of a proper order of modification.
RYDER, C.J., and THOMPSON, JAMES R. Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…conforming to its oral pronouncements. Our review of the record indicates no written order was filed. When probation is revoked or modified, a written order must be entered by the trial court reciting the specific violations found. Feezel v. State, 463 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). While we find no reversible error in the trial court’s oral findings, we remand for the entry of a written order conforming to the oral pronouncements. Affirmed; remanded with instructions. FRANK, J. and BOARDMAN, EDWARD F., (R…
-
Brookshire v. State, 473 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ge’s findings. The written order did not recite which conditions of probation were violated and thus did not conform to the court’s oral pronouncement. Although the error must be corrected, it is not sufficient grounds for reversal. Feezel v. State, 463 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Brown v. State, 429 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dunlap v. State, 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). We therefore affirm the revocation of probation but remand for correction of the written order to reflect which probation co…
-
Jethro Senat v. State, 62 So. 3d 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…, five, and special condition x. To avoid future confusion, the discrepancy between the oral pronouncement and the written order requires that the order be corrected to reflect the specific conditions of the probation violation. See Feezel v. State, 463 So. 2d 1244,1245 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Affirmed; remanded with directions. WHATLEY and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 429 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Dunlap v. State, 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Wimes v. ST. Lucie Cnty., 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)