WILLIE DOLLISON, 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.
Willie Dollison appealed the revocation of his community control following his conviction for grand theft and armed robbery. The court affirmed the revocation but remanded to require that the revocation order list only the two violations actually proven at the hearing, not all six original allegations.
The court affirmed the revocation of community control but held that the revocation order must be amended to include only the two violations actually proven—possession of a firearm and failure to remain at the approved residence—rather than all six original allegations.
[1] A trial court's oral pronouncement of findings at a community control revocation hearing controls over a written order that includes unproven allegations.
[2] A written order revoking community control must be corrected to conform to the trial court's oral findings supported by evidence presented at the revocation hearing.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The order revoking defendant's community control, however, lists all the original allegations as grounds for the revocation and must be corrected to conform to the court's oral pronouncement, which is supported by the evidence.”
Establishes the core holding that the written order must match the judge's oral findings and include only proven violations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDollison was convicted of grand theft and armed robbery with a weapon and sentenced to two years' imprisonment and two years' community control. The s…
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
The defendant, Willie Dollison, was convicted of grand theft and armed robbery with a weapon. The trial court sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment and two years’ community control. We find no merit to defendant’s argument challenging the trial court’s revocation of his community control. We agree, however, with defendant’s contention that the order revoking his community control recites unproven allegations which must be stricken from the order. The state sought revocation of defendant’s community control on six grounds: possession of handguns, possession of pistols in his bedroom, attempted murder and possession of handgun during the commission of a felony, armed robbery and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, grand theft, and unauthorized absence from his approved residence. At the revocation hearing evidence was presented on only two of the allegations.
At the conclusion of the revocation hearing, the trial judge orally stated that he found the defendant guilty of being in violation of his community control, “specifically, number one, for the violation of the law, being in possession of a firearm. And the second violation for failing to remain at your approved residence during the hours.” The order revoking defendant’s community control, however, lists all the original allegations as grounds for the revocation and must be corrected to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement, which is supported by the evidence. Brown v. State, 429 So. 2d 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentence but remand with instructions that the trial court enter an amended order including only the proven allegations which formed the basis for revocation of defendant’s community control.
FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.