TONY WILLIAMS, 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 affirmed the resentencing but reversed the probation order because special conditions of probation were included in the written order without being orally pronounced at sentencing.
Special conditions of probation must be orally pronounced at sentencing; written probation orders that include unpronounced conditions must be reversed and remanded for correction.
[1] Special conditions of probation must be orally pronounced by the trial judge at sentencing; inclusion of such conditions only in the written probation order, without oral…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTony Williams was resentenced pursuant to a prior mandate to seven years for aggravated battery, five concurrent years for grand theft, and life proba…
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 Sentencing Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant appeals the order resentencing him, pursuant to our mandate in Williams v. State, 510 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), to seven years in prison for aggravated battery, a concurrent five years in prison for grand theft and a consecutive term of life probation for burglary. We find no merit in the issues raised by appellant except the one pertaining to the special conditions of probation contained in the written probation order. Appellant argues, and the state concedes, that there were no oral pronouncements made by the trial judge at sentencing as to any special conditions of probation. Those special conditions of probation are only contained in the trial judge’s written order. The written sentence and probation order thus do not conform to the judge’s oral pronouncements as they are required to do. The inclusion in the written order of special conditions of probation that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing requires us to reverse the written order of probation and remand for correction so that the written order of probation conforms to the oral pronouncement. Williams v. State, 525 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988).
Appellant’s sentences are otherwise affirmed.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and LEHAN and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)…The inclusion of special conditions of probation in a written order that were not orally pronounced at the sentencing hearing mandates a reversal and remand for correction of the written order to conform to the oral pronouncement. Williams v. State, 542 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Appellant’s final argument is that the condition 13, requiring submission to urinalysis testing, and condition 6, prohibiting use of intoxicants in excess, must be stricken from the probation order because they were not reasonab…
-
Olvey v. State, 609 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…is probation must be reversed because they were not orally pronounced at sentencing as required by precedent from this court. Tillman v. State, 592 So. 2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA1992); Mitchell v. State, 590 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 2d DCA1991); Williams v. State, 542 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Williams v. State, 525 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA1988). See also Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.700. He makes this challenge without regard to any actual knowledge of the special conditions which he might have had. Because of the lack of an oral p…
-
Vinyard v. State, 586 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…on a daily log which you will submit to your Community Control Officer upon request. Since condition 12 was not stated at the oral pronouncement as a special condition and is not statutorily authorized, it should be stricken. See Williams v. State, 542 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). We affirm the defendant’s conviction. We direct the court to correct the judgment to reflect the defendant was adjudicated guilty under sections 893.13(1)(a) and 777.-04(1). We vacate that portion of the sentence dealing with th…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 525 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)
- State v. Malachi Bell, 510 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Williams v. State, 510 So. 2d 1207 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)