JASON CLARENCE WOLK
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
In this Anders review, the Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed Jason Clarence Wolk's probation revocation judgment but remanded to correct clerical errors in the revocation order that inaccurately listed multiple probation violations when only a methamphetamine test violation was proven at the hearing.
The judgment and sentence are affirmed, but the matter is remanded for the trial court to correct clerical errors: (1) removing references to probation violations that were not proven at the hearing, and (2) correcting the order to reference the amended affidavit dated September 21, 2020 instead of April 8, 2020.
[1] A judgment and sentence will be affirmed upon review if no reversible error is found.
[2] A scrivener's error in a judgment may be corrected on remand.
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“Appellant admitted only to violating probation with a positive test for methamphetamine. No evidence was offered at the violation of probation hearing to prove Appellant violated other conditions of probation.”
Establishes that only one violation was actually proven despite the order claiming multiple violations
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant admitted to violating probation by testing positive for methamphetamine. At the violation of probation hearing, the trial court found Appell…
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 Affidavit Of Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon review under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we find no reversible error and affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence. We write only to correct a scrivener’s error in the judgment. The Order of Revocation of Probation dated October 16, 2020, states that Appellant was found to have violated multiple conditions of probation. However, based on the hearing transcript, Appellant admitted only to violating probation with a positive test for methamphetamine. No evidence was offered at the violation of probation hearing to prove Appellant violated other conditions of probation. On remand, the trial court shall correct the order of revocation of probation to correctly state the manner in which Appellant violated probation. The Order of Revocation of Probation also incorrectly states that it is based on affidavit dated April 8, 2020. An amended affidavit was filed on September 21, 2020, and that affidavit contained the allegations at issue. On remand, the trial court shall correct the order of revocation of probation to state that the amended affidavit was filed on September 21, 2020. Appellant need not be present for these ministerial corrections to the judgment. See Williams v. State, 303 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
AFFIRMED and REMANDED for correction of a scrivener’s error. BILBREY, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jenkins v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2021)…costs and fines in the amount of $1,140, contrary to the $1,040 assessment specified in the plea agreement and orally pronounced by the trial court. In both instances, the oral pronouncements control over the written judgment. See Williams v. State, 303 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Appellant need not be present when the trial court corrects these errors. AFFIRMED and REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s errors. RAY, C.J., and MAKAR and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)